1. The complainant Smti. Neelima Roy is an Electronics & Instrumentation Engineer; she has been working under Infosys at Bangalore in Karnataka. In fact the complainant is a permanent resident of Sitapur Village of Rangat Tehsil in the District of North & Middle Andaman. The complainant could not remain physically present at Port Blair on account of her posting at Bangalore, she has filed this petition of complaint through Power of Attorney holder, her father. Thus, Shri. Rabin Ray being the authorized Power of Attorney holder of Smti. Neelima Roy has filed this petition of complaint on behalf of Neelima Roy before this State Commission. The Power of Attorney has also been filed along with petition of complaint.

2. The Opposite Party No. 1 i.e., M/s. Kedia Project Pvt. Ltd., is a Company registered under the Company's Act, 1956 having its registered office at B-1215, Shastri Nagar, New Delhi, 110052 (Impleaded through its Director Shri. Pradeep Kumar Kedia). M/s. Kedia Projects Pvt. Ltd., actually constructs residential flats, units or apartments. The Opposite Party No. 1 i.e., M/s. Kedia Project Pvt. Ltd., has a Branch Office at Port Blair situated at No. 26 BN Road opposite Radha Govindha Temple, Port Blair, 744101, South Andaman. Opposite Party No. 1 had started project of developing and building of residential flats and units or apartments under the name and style of D&K City located at Minnie Bay, Port Blair. The Opposite Party No. 3 i.e., Port Blair Municipal Council is entrusted with maintaining and regulating building plan and formulating by laws for the purpose of any such situation to be undertaken by any person within the periphery of Port Blair Municipal Corporation area. D&K City Projects obtained necessary permission from Port Blair Municipal Council for construction of such project. The Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 started publishing advertisement about such construction of apartment at Minnie Bay and published through almost all modes of communication including newspaper, internet, hoardings on all prominent places within these Islands. The complainant being highly impressed about such advertisement published in various medium decided to contact with the local agent and the Branch Office Head at its Office mentioned above.

3. The complainant was informed about the details of the entire project, facilities, amenities, cost of building structural aspects, location, parking facilities and all other details. Accordingly, complainant being impressed by such advertisement of Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 advanced a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- together with Rs. 6,180/- being service tax as booking amount and thereafter started making payment by instalments ultimately a proper agreement was executed between the complainant and Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 along with Punjab National Bank in order to make payment of subsequent instalments and the last and final payment of Rs. 3,20,000/- was made on 30.04.2015 vide receipt bearing No. 1487 and the same was annexed with the petition of complaint. It may be mentioned here that thereafter on 11.07.2015 the allotment was given to the complainant to take possession on 11.07.2015. After entering into the flat in question the complaint's father noticed many discrepancies and short comings in the construction, area, fittings etc and verbally informed Opposite Party No. 2 over telephone and also reported the matter personally. Lastly, the matter was informed to Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 in black and white on 17.10.2015 & 02.12.2015. The discrepancies/short comings found in such construction in respect of area and fittings etc are thereby informed to the Opposite Parties and demanded for correction, repair, modification as follows:-

i. The Carpet area was agreed to be given at 1098 sq.ft. for the flat in question but in fact only 818.44 sq.ft. of Carpet area was provided to the complainant.

ii. No partition wall separating the kitchen and leaving room has been constructed though there was clear provision of construction of partition wall in between the leaving room and the kitchen.

iii. Sunshade was required to be built, made of RCC but the Sunshade has actually been provided of fibre like board. The quality of such Sunshade is much below the agreed quality to be supplied by the Opposite Party.

iv. Rs. 75,000/- was taken for providing a parking space to the complainant but no such parking place was ever provided to the complainant. The calculation of Carpet area as per terms and agreement are not in accordance with law and respondents have tried to calculate such area taking into consideration the balcony, toilet, bathroom and terrace etc. Lastly the super build up area has been calculated as plinth area + 25% common area + 50% private area. The measurement of Carpet area by including the balcony, bathroom space or private area are contrary to the guidelines issued by the Engineering, Department and the laws of the land.

4. In that view of this case there is clear deficiency in service provided by the respondents and the complainant is entitled to get necessary reliefs since there was clear deficiency in service rendered by Opposite Party No. 1 & 2.

5. No completion certificate has been obtained from PBMC and has been handed over to the complainant. However, the PBMC being Opposite Party No. 3 is providing other amenities such as water, garbage collection and municipality is also collecting various taxes for the building such as property tax, sanitation tax, without granting completion certificate of the Project of Opposite Party No. 1.

6. Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 had also promised and projected several other amenities and facilities such as club house, shopping plaza, swimming pool, banquet hall, party lawns, basket ball ring, dedicated area for aerobics and Yoga, mini club Cineplex, rainwater harvesting and solid waste use of eco-friendly materials, energy saving equipments, fixtures in common and outdoor area etc. But none of these amenities and facilities were provided by the Opposite Parties to the complainant. That due to the deficiency in service, installation of substandard materials the complainant has suffered mental and physical agony. Due to the said act of the Opposite Party the complainant had suffered a lot and the complainant being a consumer of the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2, the Opposite Parties have failed to provide the services to the complainant which she was entitled lawfully on payment of full consideration amount.

7. There is clear deficiency in service and the complainant being a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 can very well claim compensation for the loss, damage and lesser carpet area provided to her by the Opposite Party No. 1.

8. The complainant sustained damage in the following manner:-

1. The complainant is thus entitled to get a sum of Rs. 8,85,729/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum for deficiency in service for not providing the required carpet area.

2. The complainant is entitled to get Rs. 75,000/- illegally taken by Opposite Parties for providing car parking space.

3. The complainant is entitled to get Rs. 50,000/- with interest at the rate 12% per annum to be calculated with the payment made till its result in as much as the Opposite Parties have failed to construct the wall beside the kitchen.

4. Complainant is also entitled to get 2,25,000/- along with 12% interest per annum for not providing quality RCC Sunshade.

5. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 2,00,000/- towards not having standard material for bathroom fittings, kitchen fittings, toilet doors etc.

6. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 10,00,000/- towards mental and physical agony and Rs. 25,000/- towards the cost of litigation.

9. Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 have contested this case by filing Written Objection whereby the Opposite Parties had denied the material allegations contained in the petition of complaint. It has been subsequently pleaded by mentioning various clause of the Apartment Buyers Agreement (Clause 16), terms and conditions of provisional application form (Clause-6), provisional allotment letter (Clause-13)(d), clause 2 & 29 of the provisional allotment letter and apartment buyers agreement (Clause-1) that there was absolutely no agreement between the parties to provide any carpet area instead it was agreed between the parties that super built area measuring 1098 sq.ft. would be transferred to the complainant only on payment of full and final instalment. Subsequently, space for car parking was provided without any charges. In fact, the full consideration of flat includes the charges for car parking and nothing was changed from the complainant towards providing open car parking space. The sum and substance of the written statement may be summarized as follows:-

a) The claim of the complainant is vehemently denied by the Opposite Party in view of various clauses of documents mentioned herein above where from it would be evident that super built up area was the basis of sale of the unit and not carpet area. This would be evident from the agreement of booking, allotment and apartment buyers agreement between the complainant and the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2.

b) The claim of the complainant is accordingly, refuted and denied as the cumulative price of the apartment offered was inclusive. No separate charge was taken for providing open parking space.

c) The claim of the complainant in respect of the kitchen partition wall is absolutely false as the same was done in accordance to the demand and directions of the complainant herself.

d) The claim is without any substance or reasons. The Sunshade is a technical aspect of the construction and it is upto the architect and structural unit to decide on the suitability of the building material, keeping in mind the safety and security of human life.

e) The claim is completely frivolous as no buyer would take possession of unit in absence of any of the mentioned basic apartment essentials. Further, the complainant has never raised such issues and neither mentioned her grievances, while writing to the Opposite Parties.

f) The claim is baseless as the complainant has misrepresented the facts of the case and tried to mis-lead the Commission with a malafide intention to extract hefty sum of money from Opposite Party.

g) The possession was taken vide copy of allotment dated 11.07.2015. It is submitted that the petition of complaint was filed after two years from the date of cause of action and accordingly, the petition of complaint is barred by law of Limitation.

10. It is further submitted that complainant never suffered any financial loss, mental and physical agony and the entire petition of complaint is a result of imagination of the complainant in order to extract some money from the Opposite Parties. It is thus prayed that petition of complaint be dismissed with exemplary cost. The complainant in order to prove the allegations levelled against the Opposite Parties has adduced the following oral and documentary evidence. Be it mentioned here that the Port Blair Municipal Council has also been added as Opposite Party No. 3. Ld. Advocate duly appeared on behalf of the PBMC in this proceedings and prayed for accommodation to file written objection. However, the PBMC did not file any written objection and did not contest this proceedings. Thus, the case proceeded ex-parte against PBMC. PW-1 is Rabin Ray, who is the Power of Attorney holder of the complainant. PW-2 Mr. Romanus Toppo, Building Inspector of PBMC. PW-3 is Dr. Arun Mallick who is a resident of D & K City, Minnie Bay vide Flat No. A-34, a-35, G-55. PW-4 Neeraj Kumar Tiwari, is also a resident of D & K City, Minnie Bay (Flat No. C-42). Pw-5 Bemal Kumar Chandra Hawlader is another resident of D&K City, Minnie Bay, Flat No. D-40. One Anup Kumar has been examined on behalf of the Kedia Project Pvt. Ltd., The following documents has been marked exhibit on behalf of the complainant:-

(Ext. -1) - Power of Attorney executed by the complainant.

Ext. -1/1 - Money receipt showing payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- to Kedia Project Pvt. Ltd., by Ms. Neelima Roy.

Ext. -1/2 - Money receipt showing payment of money by Ms. Neelima Roy to the tune of Rs. 6,180/- to Kedia Project Pvt. Ltd.,

Ext. -1/3 & 1/4 are the photostat copies of such money receipts.

Ext. -1/5 & 1/6 are the money receipts.

Ext. -2, 2/1, 2/2 & 2/3 are the photostat copies of money receipt.

Ext. -3 is photostat copy of money receipt.

Ext. -3/1 is the photostat copy of money receipt.

Ext. -4 is the allotment letter for residential flat/unit C-12 (2BHK Apartment) in the D&K City, Minnie Bay, Port Blair, A & N Islands.

Ext. -5 is the postal receipt and letter dated 17.10.2015 is marked Ext. -2/3 for identification.

Ext. -2/4 another letter.

Ext. -6 is postal receipt.

Ext. -7 is the notice issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate, South Andaman.

Ext. -8 is the brochure published by the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 covering the entire construction in which the unit has been purchased by the complainant.

Tripartite agreement between the complainant, the Opposite Parties and the bank marked X for identification.

Photostat copy of Ext. -Z/2 for identification.

Photostat letter addressed to SDM marked Z/5 for identification.

Letter dated 13.10.2015 addressed to SDM, South Andaman marked Z/6 for identification.

Photostat copy of money receipt Z/7 for identification.

Photostat copy of letter dated 02.11.2011 marked z/8 for identification.

Z/9 is the photostat copy of some drawings.

Ext. -9 is the authorization letter issued by the PBMC in favour of Romanus Toppo to produce the building plan of the project.

Ext. -10 (42 pages) is the approval of building plan.

Ext. -11 (series) are the Annexures of blue print of building plan which consists of 06 pages which are notice dated 18.03.2015, Stay Order, Provisional Order and Final Order of demolition.

11. Pursuant to the prayer of the complainant the Flat No. C-12, D&K City, Minnie Bay, Port Blair was inspected by Assistant Engineer in presence of both the parties.

12. The Inspection Report was submitted on 24.01.2022. The following is the report of inspection.

13. The only point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get the compensation as claimed in the petition of complaint

DECISION WITH REASONS

14. Be it mentioned here that one of the Members of the State Commission Mr. V.D Sivabalan represented the complainant during trial and as such, Mr. V.D. Sivabalan recused from this case and is not a party to this trial and disposal of the case as Member of State Commission.

15. PW-1 Rabin Ray is the father of Smt. Neelima Roy and he has filed this Consumer Case No. 01/2017 on behalf of Smti. Neelima Roy being holder of Power of Attorney, executed by Smti. Neelima Roy. The Power of Attorney has been filed before this Commission and no objection has been raised by the Opposite Parties in respect of such Power of Attorney. PW-1 Rabin Ray virtually reproduced the petition of complaint in his affidavit of evidence. PW-1 has also proved all the documents mentioned herein above. In his cross-examination PW-1 has subsequently stated that in the agreement between the complainant and the respondent No. 1 & 2 the Super Built area of the flat was noted 1098 sq.ft. He has also admitted that nothing has been written about the fact in the agreement that Sunshade would be constructed by the RCC Materials. He has also admitted that the area of the parking space has not been mentioned and scribed in the agreement. It is apparent from the cross-examination of PW-1 that nowhere i.e., either in the allotment letters, agreement for sale or in the tripartite agreement, the carpet area of the flat in question was ever mentioned. On the contrary, everywhere the super built area measuring 1098 sq.ft. was mentioned. PW-1 has also admitted that though some amenities were expected to be provided as per the brochure published by the OPs but such amenities were not included in the agreement for sale executed by and between the parties. PW-1 has further admitted that nothing has been mentioned in the agreement about providing the flat owners a club house, shopping plaza, swimming pool etc. Admittedly, the provisional allotment letter was issued to the complainant on the basis of her application dated 19.04.2014. It has been subsequently provided in para 17 of the said provisional allotment letter that if the complainant is dissatisfied, she may get the allotment cancelled and take refund of money without interest. However, without resorting to the provisions as stipulated in para 17 of the provisional allotment the complainant purchased the flat and continued to stay in such flat and did not even raise any objection or about deficiency of service before receiving final allotment letter and even after occupying the flat for around 03 years. PW-2 Romanus Toppo, Building Inspector of PBMC has produced and proved the original document regarding actual building plan of the entire project of M/s. D & K City Housing Project, Minnie Bay, Port Blair vide Ext. -9 & 10.

16. Ext. -11 (series) are the Annexures of blue print of building plan which consists of 06 pages, which are notice dated 18.03.2015, Stay Order, Provisional Order and Final Order of demolition. In his cross-examination the Building Inspector of PBMC has categorically stated that the Kedia Projects Pvt. Ltd., submitted papers for obtaining completion certificate/occupancy certificate before the Secretary, PBMC, Port Blair on 20.06.2017 in connection with the project under reference. PW-3 Dr. Arun Mallick has stated that he has been charged Rs. 75,000/- separately by the Builder for car parking. In his cross-examination he has admitted that he could not remember whether he had paid any amount to the Promoter for the car parking. PW-3 being School friend of Rabin Ray has deposed to support the case of the complainant. PW-4 Shri. Neeraj Kumar Tiwari has pointed out very many defects of the project under reference. Admittedly he took possession of the flat in the month of November, 2017 but did not file any complaint against the Builder before the Consumer Forum and never raised any objection against the Builder. Admittedly, PW-4 is pursuing litigation against the Opposite Parties. PW-5 Bemal Kumar Chandra Hawlader a Govt. Servant took possession of the flat in the year 2014 but did not file any complaint against the Opposite Parties. Moreover, he was present inside the courtroom when Dr. Arun Mallick Shri. Neeraj Kumar Tiwari were deposing. Opposite Party No.-1 produced one Anup Kumar as OPW-1 who has been working for Kedia Project Pvt. Ltd., for sometime. According to OPW-1 Sale Agreement was executed in between Neelima Roy and the company but Deed was never executed in between the parties. It has been suggested to OPW-1 that the Opposite Parties did not construct the inner wall separating the kitchen and dining hall out of their own and thereby the complainant has suffered huge loss.

17. On careful consideration of the materials on record, it is crystal clear that the complainant could not produce sufficient evidence to justify that in fact there was an agreement for selling 1098 sq.ft. carpet area. On the contrary, from the documents mentioned herein above it transpired that agreement was executed for selling 1098 sq.ft. super built up area to the complainant. PW-1 has admitted that nothing has been scribed in the agreement with regard to the quality and standard of the Sunshade. Report of the Assistant Engineer also reveals that Sunshade has been constructed in balcony made of acrylic sheet (PVC material). Therefore, the allegations in respect of the carpet area and Sunshade did not find support from the evidence on record. The complainant has also failed to prove that Rs. 75,000/- was paid to the respondents for getting open parking space. As per the report of the Assistant Engineer Super Built area measuring 1163.30 sq.ft. has been handed over to the complainant. However, on physical inspection it was found that there is no partition wall existing between the kitchen and the dining space. The allegation to that effect finds support from the report of the Assistant Engineer, who is an impartial person having no connection with either of the parties to this proceeding. The Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 have also failed to prove that the partition wall was not constructed as per the request of the complainant. In that view of this case, the allegation to that effect is substantiated by the report of the Assistant Commissioner and the claim of the complainant in terms of her prayer to that effect is allowed. Admittedly, the papers for obtaining Completion Certificate/Occupancy Certificate were submitted before the PBMC long ago by the Opposite Parties but the Port Blair Port Blair Municipal Council did not grant any Completion Certificate.

18. Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Parties vehemently raised objection about the maintainability of this petition of complaint on the ground that the complaint petition is barred by limitation in as much as the petition of complaint has been filed after two years from the date of initiation of the cause of action. The building remain incomplete unless the completion certificate is granted. The cause of action comes within the purview of "Continuing Wrong". The case is not barred by limitation. It is upon the Builder to provide Completion Certificate. The Apex Court has held that the failure to obtain an occupancy certificate amounts to deficiency in service. In Treaty Construction Vs. Ruby Tower Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., the Apex Court has also considered the question of awarding the compensation for not obtaining the occupancy certificate. However, the court declined to award damages as there was no cogent basis for holding that the appellant was liable for payment of compensation and assessing a quantum of compensation or assessing the loss to the Members of the respondent society. The Supreme Court made such observation in the decision reported in 2022(4) SCC 103 (Samuddhi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt. Ltd. The Supreme Court also observed that the deficiency in service thus, becomes continuing wrong till the date of getting the completion certificate. In case under reference till date completion certificate has not been provided to the complainant and other flat owners. Accordingly, the flat owners have been suffering from mental agony and are not getting appropriate services for not having the completion certificate. The Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2020 V-16 SCC 512 [LQ/SC/2020/615] (Wing Commander Arifur Rahman Khan & Others Vs. DLF Southern Homes Private Limited & Others has held that the failure to obtain an occupancy certificate or abide by contractual obligations amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore, in view of the decision mentioned herein above it is also apparent that the complainant is entitled to get compensation for not having the completion certificate. The complainant has thus suffered mental agony for not having the completion certificate within stipulated period of time. In our considered opinion the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) on the ground of suffering mental and physical agony. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 25,000/- towards the cost of litigation. It may be mentioned that the complainant subsequently pointed out in his evidence and petition of complaint that the complainant was swayed by the flashing advertisement of the Builders and that is why she purchased such flat. The amenities provided in the brochure were not provided. It is true that the Apex Court has also made certain specific observations and decided to provide specific compensation and granted reliefs to that effect. It is equally true that Ld. Advocate for the complainant despite giving opportunity to that effect did not raise anything and even refrained from making any submissions on such account though the citations of the Apex Court were referred to both the parties. Ld. Advocate for the complainant did not submit anything on that score and Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 tried to distinguish such decisions on the ground that the matter was not raised during trial and the matter was not connected with the proceedings under reference.

19. Most interesting aspect of this case is that the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 projected a fantastic project through the brochure vide Ext. -8 and compelled the perspective customers to be trapped in their net.

20. Curiously enough, we find that the entire transaction of sale, agreement etc remain out of the scope of registration. In that view of this case, the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 would never be able to hand over the title to the flat owner. They would not be able to get the sale deed registered in favour of flat owners. The Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 therefore virtually deceived the prospective buyers and involved in murkey affairs to earn profit. That may be the reason for not having the completion certificate and thereby prevented the flat owners from enjoying the property and avail of the services from Port Blair Municipal Council.

21. The role of Port Blair Municipal Council is also not beyond criticism. Port Blair Municipal Council permitted the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 to construct such building and to sale the same to flat owners for consideration.

22. Therefore, the Port Blair Municipal Council is also under obligation to grant completion certificate subject to clearance given by technical team of the Municipality. Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 cannot avoid handing over of completion certificate on the ground that the matter is pending before the Port Blair Municipal Council. Therefore, all the Opposite Parties are directed to grant completion certificate to the building owner/complainant within 06 months from date failing which all the Opposite Parties shall pay penalty to the tune of Rs. 100 daily individually till the date of handing over of the completion certificate. The Consumer Protection Act has been implemented for protection of the interest of Consumers and for the said purpose the authorities have been established for settlement of consumer disputes. Though there is no prayer for granting of completion certificate yet we cannot ignore the interest of the consumers who has been suffering for not having completion certificate of the building under reference. Therefore, in our considered view, this Commission can mould the prayer of the complainant and can grant the relief regarding completion certificate also.

23. The entire project of Opposite Party 1 & 2 appear to be based on unregistered agreements devoid of any legal justification/support.

24. On instruction Ld. Advocate for Opposite No. 1 & 2 also admitted that the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 would not be able to execute any registered sale deed in favour of the complainant and other flat owners.

25. We are however, not taking cognizance of such fact for simple reason that the complainant did not raise such fact in her pleadings and Ld. Advocate for the complainant also did not point out to that score during argument. The witnesses of the complainant also did not point out that the entire transaction is based on agreement and the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 are not in a position to execute any sale deed in favour of the flat owners though the flat owners were compelled to obtain bank loan and pay the entire value of such flats to Opposite Party No. 1 & 2. However, we have already decided that the construction would not be completed unless the completion certificate is provided to the flat owners. Therefore, the cause of action is continuing one and the flat owners can take appropriate action for seeking redress of their grievances in this respect before appropriate Forum since the cause of action is continuing one and the matter is not hit by the law of limitation.

26. In the premises set forth above, it may be specifically stated that the complainant is not entitled to get any amount towards deficiency of service for not providing required club area, or Rs. 75,000/- alleged payment towards car parking space or nothing towards quality of the RCC Sunshade. The complainant is also not entitled to get anything towards standard of material for bathroom fittings and kitchen fittings etc. However, the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 50,000/- along with 10% interest per annum from the date of filing of complaint and till the date of Order, if paid within 02 months from the date of this Order failing which the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 will have to pay such amount along with 10% of interest till the date of realization of such amount. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 1,00,000/- towards mental agony for not having completion certificate and Rs. 25,000/- towards the cost of litigation. In the premises set forth above the petition of complaint is partly allowed on contest against Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 and ex-parte against Opposite Party No. 3.

27. Hence, it is,

Ordered

that the petition of complaint is allowed in part in terms of following direction:-

that the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 50,000/- with 10% interest p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till this date from Opposite Party No. 1 & 2.

28. The Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 are directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) along with 10% interest p.a. within 60 days from this date failing which the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 shall pay such interest upon Rs. 50,000/- till the date of realization.

29. Opposite Party No. -1 & 2 are further directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to the complainant towards the mental agony for not having completion certificate within time.

30. The Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 are also directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) towards the cost of litigation to the complainant and such payments are to be made within 02 months from the date of this Order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to put-in this Order in execution in accordance with law.

31. The Opposite Parties are also directed to grant completion certificate of the flat of the complainant within 06 months from date failing which all the Opposite Parties shall individually be liable to pay Rs. 100/- each per-diem to the complainant till the date of granting completion certificate to the complainant.

32. Let a copy of this Order be given to both the parties free of cost.