Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 106 (HP)

Bal Krishan Sharma v. Mdc Estate Private Limited

2019-01-08

P.S.RANA, VIJAY PAL KHACHI

body2019
JUDGMENT P.S. Rana (R), President - Present consumer complaint is filed under section 17 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes. that opposite party No.1 planned to develop a colony in the financial year 2005-06 with approximately 400 flats in the name of Garden Valley. It is further pleaded that opposite parties No.2 & 3 collaborated with opposite party No.1 and undertook to sell 100 flats and consequently they purchased 100 flats in between December 2005 to March 2007 by paying earnest money to opposite party No.1. It is further pleaded that opposite party No.1 purchased land measuring 35 bighas and 5 biswas at Village Bhatolikalan Tehsil Nalagarh District Solan H.P. It is further pleaded that opposite party No.1 also acquired licence from H.P. Government for setting up colony namely Garden Valley. 2. It is further pleaded that due to dispute between the opposite parties No.2 & 3 opposite parties were unable to sell 100 proposed flats and they requested the opposite party No.1 to convert the flats into plots. It is further pleaded that opposite party No.1 agreed with the proposal of opposite parties No.2 & 3 and thereafter opposite party No.1 converted the 400 flats project into 110 residential/commercial plots on the same land. It is further pleaded that opposite parties No.2 & 3 were allotted eleven plots i.e. Plot No. 7, 31, 44, 53, 56, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 50 in lieu of 100 flats by opposite party No.1. It is further pleaded that plots No. 7 and 31 were sold to the complainant by opposite parties No.2 and 3. It is further pleaded that allotment letter was issued. It is further pleaded that full payment was given as per agreement and despite receipt of full payment from the complainant opposite parties failed to complete the development work within 9 (Nine) years and failed to obtain the completion certificate and committed deficiency in service. It is further pleaded that possession of plots were not handed over to the complainant even despite numerous telephonic calls and letters and several visits to the office of opposite parties. It is further pleaded that legal notice was also issued by complainant for transfer of plots No.7 & 31. 3. It is further pleaded that possession of plots were not handed over to the complainant even despite numerous telephonic calls and letters and several visits to the office of opposite parties. It is further pleaded that legal notice was also issued by complainant for transfer of plots No.7 & 31. 3. It is further pleaded that opposite party No.1 vide letter dated 07.05.2015 requested the complainant to visit the Chandigarh office with all original documents for transfer of plots No. 7 & 31. It is further pleaded that thereafter opposite party No.1 issued allotment/transfer letter on dated 06.06.2015. It is further pleaded that opposite party No.1 changed the terms and conditions of allotment letter. It is further pleaded that in the initial agreement possession was to be delivered by 15.12.2007. It is further pleaded that complainant vide letter dated 19.11.2015 requested the opposite party No.1 to hand over the possession of plots No. 7 & 31 so that complainant could start the construction work. It is further pleaded that opposite party No.1 vide letter dated 05.05.2016 informed the complainant about the internal dispute between the opposite parties No.2 & 3 with regard to accounts matter. It is further pleaded that opposite parties despite the receipt of full and final payment of sale of plots vide agreement dated 26.09.2007 did not deliver the possession of the plots to the complainant and committed deficiency in service. 4. It is further pleaded that complainant has already made full and final payment of plots No. 7 & 31 on dated 01.12.2009. It is further pleaded that due to delay in delivery of possession of plots to the complainant costs of construction has almost increased and complainant would face difficulty to complete the construction work within his limited resources. It is further pleaded that opposite parties have diverted the money collected from the complainant as well as other similar purchasers in some other projects. Complainant sought relief to the effect that opposite parties be directed to handover the physical possession of plots No.7 & 31 as per original terms and conditions of the agreement dated 26.06.2007. In alternative complainant sought relief of return of sale consideration with interest @18% from the date of deposit till actual realization. In addition complainant sought relief of payment of compensation of Rs. In alternative complainant sought relief of return of sale consideration with interest @18% from the date of deposit till actual realization. In addition complainant sought relief of payment of compensation of Rs. 2000000/- (Twenty lac) on account of (i) Escalation of cost of construction (ii) Punitive damages (iii) Compensation for harassment and mental agony for 9 (Nine) years. In addition complainant sought litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 75000/- (Seventy five thousand). Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought. 5. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party No.1 pleaded therein that complainant has clubbed two different cause of actions relating to two plots. It is pleaded that complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer. It is further pleaded that complainant has purchased the plots for commercial purpose and for resale purpose. It is further pleaded that State Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of consumer complaint. It is further pleaded that possession was delayed due to dispute between opposite parties No.2 & 3. It is further pleaded that possession would be given to the complainant as soon as clearance would be obtained from the concerned departments. It is further pleaded that opposite parties No.2 & 3 have paid consideration amount of Rs. 864000/- (Eight lac sixty four thousand) each towards the purchase of plots No.7 and 31. It is further pleaded that opposite party No.1 did not receive consideration amount to the tune of Rs. 2500000/- (Twenty five lac) relating to plots No.7 & 31 as claimed by the complainant. It is further pleaded that eleven plots were purchased by opposite parties No.2 & 3 in consideration amount of Rs. 9504000/- (Ninety five lac four thousand). It is further pleaded that opposite parties No.2 & 3 after adjusting the amount already paid i.e. Rs. 8116000/- (Eighty one lac sixteen thousand) were liable to pay balance amount of Rs. 1388000/- (Thirteen lac eighty eight thousand) to opposite party No.1. It is further pleaded that previous agreement of sale of plots was executed between the complainant and opposite parties No.2 and 3. It is further pleaded that privity of contract was executed between the complainant and opposite party No.1 on dated 06.06.2015 relating to sale of plots. It is further pleaded that after obtaining the completion certificate possession was also offered to the complainant vide letter dated 26.04.2017. It is further pleaded that privity of contract was executed between the complainant and opposite party No.1 on dated 06.06.2015 relating to sale of plots. It is further pleaded that after obtaining the completion certificate possession was also offered to the complainant vide letter dated 26.04.2017. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint against opposite party No.1 sought. 6. Per contra separate version filed on behalf of opposite party No.2 pleaded therein that present consumer complaint against opposite party No.2 is not maintainable. It is pleaded that complainant has no cause of action against the opposite party No.2. It is further pleaded that complainant has purchased the plots No.7 and 31 from opposite party No.3. It is further pleaded that opposite party No.2 had sold his share of plots to the opposite party No.3 and opposite party No.3 was sole owner of the plots. It is further pleaded that commitments were made only by opposite parties No.1 & 3 to the complainant. It is further pleaded that opposite party No.2 has no role. It is further pleaded that it was the sole responsibility of opposite parties No.1 & 3 to get the plot transferred in the name of complainant. It is further pleaded that mandatory clearance from concerned departments and authorities and delivery of actual physical possession lies upon the opposite parties No. 1 and 3 only and does not lie upon the opposite party No.2. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint against opposite party No.2 sought. 7. Per contra separate version filed on behalf of opposite party No.3 pleaded therein that on dated 26.09.2007 opposite party No.1 entered into agreement to sell plots with opposite parties No.2 and 3 vide annexure-13A in project Garden Valley in consideration amount of Rs. 864000/- (Eight lac sixty four thousand). It is pleaded that on dated 06.11.2007 agreement of sale was entered between opposite parties No.2 and 3 vide which opposite party No.2 sold his entire share in plots No. 7 and 31 to opposite party No.3 and gave NOC to opposite parties No.1 and 3 and thereafter opposite parties No. 1 & 3 became absolute owner of the plots. It is further pleaded that agreement to sale of plots No.7 and 31 was executed between the complainant and opposite party No.3 on dated 24.12.2008 and 19.01.2009. It is further pleaded that complainant has paid full and final consideration amount of Rs. It is further pleaded that agreement to sale of plots No.7 and 31 was executed between the complainant and opposite party No.3 on dated 24.12.2008 and 19.01.2009. It is further pleaded that complainant has paid full and final consideration amount of Rs. 864000/- (Eight lac sixty four thousand) which was received by opposite party No.3. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint against opposite party No.3 sought. 8. Complainants filed rejoinders and reasserted the allegations mentioned in the complaint. 9. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of complainant, opposite party No.1 and opposite party No. 3 and we have also heard authorized person appearing on behalf of opposite party No.2 and we have also perused entire record carefully. 10. Following points arise for determination in the present complaint: 1. Whether consumer complaint filed by complainant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of consumer complaint? 2. Final order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 11. Complainant filed affidavit Ex.C-1 in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that deponent purchased plots No. 7 and 31 from opposite party No.1 through opposite parties No.2 and 3 and paid consideration amount of Rs. 2500000/- (Twenty five lac) for both the plots. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent purchased the two plots in order to settle his family members i.e. His son and daughter in Garden Valley at Village Bhatolikalan Tehsil Nalagarh District Solan H.P. There is further recital in the affidavit that for the last nine years plots were not transferred and physical possession of plots were not handed over to the complainant despite written as well verbal requests. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite party No.1 demanded extra costs of stamp papers and registration charges. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite parties have diverted the money collected from the consumers in some other project and intentionally & deliberately delayed the present project. State Commission has perused all the annexures filed by complainant carefully. 12. Opposite party No.1 filed affidavit of Dharminder Singh Gulati Director MDC Estate Pvt. Ltd. Ex.OP1-1 in evidence. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite parties have diverted the money collected from the consumers in some other project and intentionally & deliberately delayed the present project. State Commission has perused all the annexures filed by complainant carefully. 12. Opposite party No.1 filed affidavit of Dharminder Singh Gulati Director MDC Estate Pvt. Ltd. Ex.OP1-1 in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that complainant has purchased the plots from opposite parties No. 2 and 3 and dispute is between complainant and opposite parties No.2 and 3. There is further recital in the affidavit that complainant came in the contact of opposite party No.1 only on dated 06.06.2015 and executed agreement. There is further recital in the affidavit that previous commitments were not given by the opposite party No.1 to the complainant but were given by opposite parties No.2 and 3. There is further recital in the affidavit that privity of contract between complainant and opposite party No.1 accrued for the first time on 06.06.2015. There is further recital in the affidavit that immediately after execution of agreement opposite party No.1 got the approval for the project from Government Department and thereafter completion certificate was obtained on dated 09.01.2017. 13. Opposite party No.2 filed affidavit of Kapil Chadha Ex. OP2-I in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that present complaint qua deponent is not maintainable. There is further recital in the affidavit that commitments were made by opposite parties No.1 and 3. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite party No.2 was also a purchaser and was not promoter or associates of opposite party No.1. There is further recital in the affidavit that entire sole responsibility lies with opposite parties No.1 and 3 to get the plot transferred in the name of complainant because opposite party No.2 has alienated his share to opposite party No.3. 14. Opposite party No.3 filed affidavit of Mukesh Chadha Ex. OP3-1 in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that on dated 26.09.2007 opposite party No.1 entered into agreement of sale with opposite parties No.2 and 3 relating to plots in dispute in project Garden Valley in consideration amount of Rs. 864000/- (Eight lac sixty four thousand) each. 14. Opposite party No.3 filed affidavit of Mukesh Chadha Ex. OP3-1 in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that on dated 26.09.2007 opposite party No.1 entered into agreement of sale with opposite parties No.2 and 3 relating to plots in dispute in project Garden Valley in consideration amount of Rs. 864000/- (Eight lac sixty four thousand) each. There is recital in the affidavit that agreements to sell relating to plots No.7 and 31 were entered between the deponent and complainant on dated 24.12.2008 and 19.01.2009 and said plots were sold to the complainant by deponent on sale price of Rs. 864000/- (Eight lac sixty four thousand) each. There is recital in the affidavit that complainant did not purchase the plot in consideration amount of Rs. 1250000/- (Twelve lac fifty thousand). There is recital in the affidavit that complainant purchased the two plots i.e. Plots No.7 and 31 from opposite party No.1 through opposite parties No.2 and 3 by paying Rs. 864000/- (Eight lac sixty four thousand) for each plot. 15. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that opposite parties be directed to handover the physical possession of plots No. 7 & 31 as per original terms and conditions of the agreement dated 26.09.2007 without any extra costs with immediate effect or in alternative opposite parties be directed to refund the sale consideration amount with interest at the rate of 18% from the date of deposit till actual realization is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that opposite party No. 1 agreed to sell plots No.7 & 31 by way of sale agreement to opposite parties No. 2 & 3 and agreement to sell was executed between opposite party No.1 and opposite parties No.2 & 3. It is also proved on record that thereafter opposite party No.2 relinquished his share in favour of opposite party No.3. 16. It is also proved on record that on dated 06.06.2015 opposite party No.1 has issued allotment/transfer letter to the complainant Annexure C-1. State Commission is of the opinion that title in immovable property value of which exceeds Rs. 100/- (One hundred) passes in favour of vendee only by way of registered sale deed before Sub Registrar. 16. It is also proved on record that on dated 06.06.2015 opposite party No.1 has issued allotment/transfer letter to the complainant Annexure C-1. State Commission is of the opinion that title in immovable property value of which exceeds Rs. 100/- (One hundred) passes in favour of vendee only by way of registered sale deed before Sub Registrar. In the present matter there is no evidence on record in order to prove that title of plots No.7 & 31 was passed in favour of opposite parties No.2 & 3 by way of registered sale deed before Sub Registrar. Admittedly dispute inter se parties is relating to immovable property i.e. Plots No.7 & 31 value of which is in lacs. 17. It is well settled law that an agreement to sell give rights to a party to enforce the agreement within the limitation against the defaulting party in the court of law. An agreement to sell does not confer any title in favour of vandee. It is held that title of plots No.7 & 31 was not extinguished from opposite party No.1 to opposite parties No.2 & 3. No sale deed on behalf of opposite party No.1 in favour of opposite parties No.2 & 3 relating to plots No.7 & 31 was executed. Admittedly value of plots No. 7 & 31 is exceeding Rs. 100/- (One hundred) and complainant has himself admitted that he has paid consideration amount of plots No.7 & 31 exceeding Rs. 100/- (One hundred). In view of above stated facts it is held that title of plots No.7 & 31 remained with opposite party No.1 only and did not transfer in the favour of opposite parties No.2 & 3 by way of an agreement to sell. 18. It is well settled law that an agreement to sell does not create or extinguish any title in the immovable property. It only gives the right to a person to enforce the contract in accordance with law before competent court. It is proved on record that privity of contract was executed between the complainant and opposite party No.1 for the first time on dated 06.06.2015 and it is also proved on record that completion certificate was obtained by opposite party No.1 on dated 09.01.2017. It is proved on record that opposite party No.1 has obtained the completion certificate within a period of 1 1 /2 years. It is proved on record that opposite party No.1 has obtained the completion certificate within a period of 1 1 /2 years. It is well settled law that possession of plots could not be given to the complainant prior to the issuance of completion certificate. It is proved on record that completion certificate was obtained by opposite party No.1 relating to plots No.7 & 31 on dated 09.01.2017 Annexure OP-1/4. State Commission is of the opinion that opposite parties was under legal obligation to sell the plots after obtaining completion certificate. In the present matter it is proved on record that opposite parties have advertised the sale of plots prior to obtaining completion certificate from the authority. Completion certificate was issued from the competent authority on dated 09.01.2017 Annexure OP-1/4. No explanation given by the opposite parties as to how opposite parties have conducted sale transaction with complainant prior to obtaining completion certificate of plots from the competent authority. Above stated acts of opposite parties amount to deficiency in service ipso-facto. See 2018 (4) CLT 70 NC Siddhant Singh Chauhan & Ors. v. Vatika Ltd. See 2018 (4) CLT 251 NC titled Inder Singh Mehta & Ors. v. Promont Hilltop Private Ltd. & Ors. See 2018(4) CLT 301 NC titled M/s. Shivalik Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Deshbir Singh & Ors. See 2018 (4) CLT 352 NC titled Surender v. Om Prakash & Ors . 19. It is well settled law that sale deed and agreement to sale are entirely two different concepts under law. Sale deed is defined under section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882. As per section 54 of Transfer of Property Act 1882 sale is transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part paid or part promised. As per section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act sale of immovable property whose value exceeds Rs. 100/-(One hundred) should be executed by way of registered instrument only. 20. As per section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 contract for sale of immovable property is a contract that sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties. As per section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 contract for sale by itself would not create any interest in or charge in immovable property. As per section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 contract for sale by itself would not create any interest in or charge in immovable property. State Commission is of the opinion that agreement to sell executed between opposite party No.1 and opposite parties No.2 & 3 does not fall within the definition of sale as defined under section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882. 21. As per Registration Act 1908 sale of immovable property exceeding Rs. 100/- (One hundred) requires compulsory registration. In the present matter value of plots in dispute inter se parties is in lacs and compulsory registration before Sub Registrar was essential as per Registration Act 1908. Even as per section 49 of the Registration Act 1908 no document required registration under Registration Act 1908 shall effect any immovable property comprised therein unless registered under Registration Act. Further as per section 49 of the Registration Act 1908 no document which requires compulsory registration would be received as evidence of any transactions effecting such immovable property unless the same is registered as per Registration Act 1908. Even contract to transfer immovable property for consideration is compulsory registrable under section 17-1A of Registration Act 1908 w.e.f. 24.09.2001. See AIR 2014 SC page 339 State of Haryana v. Nazir Singh. See 2009 (1) Civil Court Cases 235 SC Avinash Kumar Chauhan v. Vijay. See AIR 1989 Apex Court 1923 Lachman Dass v. Ram Lal. 22. Power of registration as per Registration Act 1908 in Himachal Pradesh has been granted to Naib Tehsildar and Tehsildar and Sub Registrar and District Collector has been designated as Registrar. Power of registration of immovable property in Himachal Pradesh has not been vested with Notary. In view of the fact that sale agreement attested by Notary does not confer any title in favour of the vendee qua immovable property value of which exceeds Rs. 100/- (One hundred) and in view of the fact that agreement to sell was executed between the opposite party No.1 and opposite parties No.2 & 3 before Notary it is held that opposite parties No.2 & 3 did not acquire any title in immovable property from opposite party No.1 qua plots in dispute. 23. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that complainant is legally entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 23. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that complainant is legally entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 2000000/- (Twenty lac) on account of escalation of costs of construction and punitive compensation and harassment for delaying the possession of plots for nine years is decided accordingly. State commission is of the opinion that opposite parties have committed deficiency in service by way of not delivering the possession to the complainant for nine years. It is held that deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties is writ large. It is held that complainant is legally entitled for reasonable compensation. 24. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that complainant is legally entitled for litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 75000/- (Seventy five thousand) is decided accordingly. It is held that complaint has to engage advocate before State Commission and it is held that complainant is legally entitled for reasonable litigation costs from opposite parties. 25. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party No.1 that no privity of contract was executed between opposite party No.1 and complainant in the year 2007 and on this ground complaint against opposite party No.1 be dismissed is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that opposite party No.1 was in exclusive owner in possession of the plots in dispute. It is proved on record that opposite party No.1 has executed agreement to sell with opposite parties No.2 & 3. It is held that title did not pass in immovable property by way of agreement to sell. The title in immovable property passes only by way of execution of sale deed as per Registration Act because value of immovable property was exceeding Rs. 100/- (One hundred). In view of the fact that no sale deed was executed between opposite party No.1 and opposite parties No.2 & 3 relating to plots No.7 & 31 and simply an agreement for sale was executed hence it is held that agreement to sell did not give any title to opposite parties No.2 & 3 in plots No.7 & 31 and title remained with opposite party No.1. It is proved on record that opposite parties No.2 & 3 have received the consideration amount from the complainant at initial stage in the year 2007 and thereafter consideration amount was transferred to opposite party No.1 and thereafter opposite party No.1 obtained completion certificate of plots and issued allotment/transfer letter to the complainant on dated 06.06.2015 Annexure C-1 placed on record. In view of the fact that privity of contract was executed between opposite party No.1 and complainant and in view of the fact that opposite party No.1 has issued allotment/transfer letter after obtaining completion certificate opposite party No.1 could not be exonerated from liability. 26. Submission of learned advocates appearing on behalf of opposite parties No.2 & 3 that opposite parties No.2 & 3 are not liable and consumer complaint against opposite parties No.2 & 3 be dismissed is decided accordingly. State commission is of the opinion that opposite parties No.2 & 3 have obtained consideration amount from the complainant and thereafter opposite party No.2 has relinquished his rights in favour of opposite party No.3 and opposite parties No. 2 & 3 have given NOC to transfer the plots in favour of complainant and in view of the fact that thereafter opposite party No.1 has issued allotment/transfer letter to the complainant it is held that opposite parties No.2&3 could not be exonerated because they have actively participated in the transaction of plots No. 7&31 after receiving consideration amount from the complainant. 27. Submission of learned advocates appearing on behalf of the opposite parties that State Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of consumer complaint and on this ground complaint filed by complainant be dismissed is decided accordingly. Plots No.7&31 in dispute are situated in Village Bhatolikalan Tehsil Nalagarh District Solan H.P. In view of the fact that immovable property is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of H.P. State Consumer Commission it is held that H.P. State Consumer Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of consumer complaint. 28. Submission of learned advocates appearing on behalf of opposite parties that complainant has purchased plots for commercial purpose and consumer complaint be dismissed is decided accordingly. There is no evidence on record that complainant has purchased the plots for commercial purpose. On the contrary it is proved on record that complainant has purchased the plots for settling his family members i.e. His sons and daughters. There is no evidence on record that complainant has purchased the plots for commercial purpose. On the contrary it is proved on record that complainant has purchased the plots for settling his family members i.e. His sons and daughters. Affidavit filed by complainant that he has purchased plots in order to settle his sons and daughters remained unrebutted on record. Even service rendered by opposite parties falls within the definition of section 2(o) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 because any service relating to housing construction falls within the definition of section 2(o) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and plots were purchased by the complainant for construction of house only and opposite parties have received consideration amount from complainant for sale of plots. It is held that plot purchased for housing construction falls within definition of housing construction as defined under section 2(o) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 amended vide act No.50 of 1993 w.e.f. 18.06.1993 because plot purchased for housing construction is part and parcel of housing construction. 29. Submission of learned advocates appearing on behalf of opposite parties that present consumer complaint is not within limitation and on this ground complaint filed by complainant be dismissed is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that occupancy/completion certificate was obtained by opposite party No.1 from competent authority on dated 09.01.2017. It is held that till the occupancy certificate is not obtained from competent authority of law till then cause of action will continue to the complainant. It is held that complaint is within limitation from the date of obtaining occupancy/completion certificate by opposite party No.1. 2018 (4) CLT 530 NC titled Kiran Joshi v. S.M.V Agencies Private Ltd . Point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order 30. In view of findings upon point No.1 above complaint is partly allowed. It is ordered that the opposite party No.1 shall execute sale deed of plots No. 7 & 31 in favour of complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. It is further ordered that opposite party No.1 shall handover the possession of plots No.7 & 31 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. In addition it is further ordered that opposite parties No.1 to 3 shall pay amount to the tune of Rs. 30000/- (Thirty thousand) for mental harassment and agony to the complainant equally. In addition it is further ordered that opposite parties No.1 to 3 shall pay amount to the tune of Rs. 30000/- (Thirty thousand) for mental harassment and agony to the complainant equally. It is further ordered that opposite parties No.1 to 3 shall pay costs of litigation to the tune of Rs. 10000/- (Ten thousand) to the complainant equally. It is further ordered that stamp paper charges and registration charges shall be paid by the complainant before Sub Registrar at the time of registration of sale/conveyance deed. It is further ordered that complainant shall abide by all laws, byelaws, rules and regulations made by Government of H.P., HIMUDA or any other authority. It is further ordered that opposite party No.1 shall be legally entitled to seek the redressal against opposite parties No.2 & 3 if any from the competent court of law. Allotment/transfer letter annexure C-1 shall form part and parcel of order. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. File of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Consumer Complaint No.03/2017 is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.