The wide connotation of 'compensation' under Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, includes mental agony, emotional suffering, and other injustices suffered by the consumer.

ORDER

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral)- Vide impugned order dated 2.1.2008, passed by the District Forum, the appellant company has been directed to refund Rs. 2,00,000 to the respondent and also to pay Rs. 50,000 for illegally withholding the security amount and subjecting the respondent to mental agony and undue hardship besides Rs. 1 0,000 as cost of litigation.

2. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.

3. Allegation of the respondent leading to the impugned order in brief were that M/s. Vipul Real Estate P. Ltd. was a broker/agent of the company M/s. Urban Improvement Trust and the respondent approached their office in Faridabad for the purchase of plot No.1151 B, Green Field Colony. The agent introduced the respondent with the appellant and obtained the agreement. Conveyance deed dated 30.10.2003 was prepared. The appellant compelled the respondent to deposit Rs. 2,00,000 as security deposit vide letter dated 22.9.2003. The respondent had paid full payment of the plot but still security was taken on the ground that after completing the roof slab they would refund security deposit of Rs. 2,00,000. After the conveyance deed respondent had applied for approval of the site plan for the plot. After completing formalities the plan was approved on 13.12.2004. In January 2005, the respondent had started removing the stones from his plot as use of machine for removing the stone was not permitted by the company. However, the respondent completed the roof slab on 10.10.2005 and then the respondent approached the appellant to refund the security amount but the same was not refunded.

4. In its defence the appellant took the plea that the respondent was to complete the construction of at least up to the roof slab on the plot by 16.7.2004. Appellant has alleged gross default on the part of the respondent who has rendered himself liable for forfeiture of his security deposit. Appellant therefore justified the forfeiture.

5. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the District Forum has though observed that the appellant should have filed the agreement signed by the respondent but even if an agreement which is not signed by the respondent and any agreement even if produced by the appellant, which is not signed by the respondent will not bind the respondent, still the District Forum has returned finding of fact that without the conveyance deed and no objection certificate, the respondent could not get the site plan sanctioned from the Municipal Corporation of Faridabad and the appellant was well aware that no site plan could be sanctioned without conveyance deed and no objection certificate and this clause has been added by the appellant with a view to find excuse to forfeit the security deposit. It further finds that when the plan was not approved before 13.12.2004, how could the respondent complete the construction and therefore held the withholding of the security amount as unjustified.

6. Counsel for the appellant has taken us through the agreement which purported to bear the signatures of the owner of the appellant company as well as of the respondent and the relevant term pertains to schedule for construction and is as under:

PartB.

Schedule for construction Completion time 24 months.

Total completion time 24 months whichever is earlier and the construction period of 24 months will be calculated from 17.7.2002, the date of principle agreement.

7. Counsel for the appellant has also referred to the application for seeking permission to erect the building made by the respondent to the District Town Planner, Faridabad, which was received by it on 23.8.2004. Admittedly the security amount was deposited vide receipt dated 22.9.2000. Letter dated 9.5.2003 sent by the appellant to the respondent is of great significance as it was through this letter the appellant undertook to refund the security amount to the respondent after completion of the roof slab of the plot. The letter reads as under:

9th May, 2003.

GF/1151/2003/968

Shri Raji