AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member
The present Consumer Complaint (CC) has been filed by the Complainants against Opposite Party (OP) as detailed above, inter alia praying for:-
(i) direct the OP for an immediate 100% refund of the total amount of Rs.1,41,06,957/- paid by the Complainants along with penal interest @18% p.a. from the date of receipt of payments made to the OP.
(ii) direct the OP to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for mental agony, harassment, discomfort and undue hardships caused to the complainants.
(iii) direct the OP to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards litigation costs.
It is averred/stated in the Complaint that: -
The Complainant No. 3 initially booked a Unit in the Project of the OP by filing an Application form and paying booking amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. The OP received Rs.16,41,360/- by 30.09.2013. Thereafter, a Unit bearing No. 3202, Type-C, 20th Floor was allotted to the complainant vide allotment letter dated 29.10.2013 and Apartment Buyer’s Agreement was executed between the Complainant No. 3 and the OP in October, 2013, whereby the said unit was promised to be delivered within 42 months from the date of Agreement, i.e. April 2017. It is averred that Agreement was filed with one-sided, unilateral and arbitrary terms and conditions, but the complainant-3 had no choice but to sign on the dotted line since any disagreement would have led to cancellation of the allotment and forfeiture of the amounts already collected by the OP. The OP collected Rs.48,55,162/- by 23.08.2014 from the Complainant-3 towards consideration of the said Unit. Around November, 2014, the complainant came to know that High Tension Power Transmission lines are passing through the Project complex and the same is in close proximity to the Tower in which the Complainant-3 was allotted the unit. The OP failed to disclose to the Complainant at the time of booking of the said Unit. The complainant-3 visited the office of OP and communicated objection to the representatives of the OP regarding the High Tension Power Transmission lines passing through the Project complex and in close proximity to the tower in which he was allotted the Initial Unit and asked for refund of the amount paid by him. The complainant was assured that the said transmission lines would be getting underground shortly and declined his request for refund and instead offered allotment of another unit in the same Project. Complainant -3 having paid a substantial amount of the total consideration and fearing the forfeiture of earnest money (15% of the basic sale price), was left with no option but to agree to the offer of an alternative unit worth Rs.1,46,97,050/- bearing No. 5162, on 16th floor in Tower-5, admeasuring super area 2150 sq.ft. The said unit was allotted to the complainant vide Allotment Letter dated 24.02.2015, in the same project. On the request of Complainant-3, the names of his wife and younger son were added as Co-alottees in the said Unit and accordingly, the names of Complainant No.1 and 2 were also added as Co-allottees in the said Unit. The amount Rs.46,81,570/- paid towards the Initial Unit was adjusted towards the consideration of the said Unit, while the remaining balance of Rs.1,73,592/- was adjusted by the OP towards service tax. The Complainant-3 was asked to surrender all the original documents issued for initial Unit including all the original payment receipts issued against the payments made towards the initial allotment. The complainants were thereafter issued new payment receipts as per the amounts mentioned above.
The Apartment Buyer’s Agreement dated 24.02.2015 was executed between the OP and the Complainants. As per the Agreement the possession of the Unit was to be delivered within 42 months from the date of the Agreement, i.e. by 24.08.2018. As per the initial Agreement dated October, 2013, the possession was to be delivered by April 2017, the promised date of possession was extended from April 2017 to August 2018. The Complainants had booked a Unit in the Project of OP for their residential requirement and had anticipated that he would get the possession of the Unit by April 2017. The complainants made all the payments by following the payment plan and when the demands for payments were raised by the OP. The complainants opted for the subvention scheme payment plan and the OP had collected an amount of Rs.1,41,06,959/- from the complainants till January 2018 towards the sale consideration of the Unit. In order to make timely payments to the OP, the complainant-2 had also availed loan services of ICICI Bank for an amount of Rs.90,00,000/-. Due to failure on the part of OP in delivering timely possession, the Complainant-2 purchased a house in Bangalore where he is currently residing. It was only on 09.08.2019 after a delay of 1 year from the promised date of possession, the OP sent the Letter of Offer of Possession along with the final demand letter raising the demand of Rs.18,26,770/- from the Complainants. The Occupation Certificate (OC) was also obtained by the OP for the said project on 09.08.2019. The possession was offered in an incomplete condition as several finishing works like plastering, flooring, interiors, as well as various club facilities were not completed until December, 2019. By virtue of Clause 6.3 of the Agreement, the complainants are well within their rights to seek refund of the amounts paid by them along with interest, as there is a clear and apparent delay on the part of the OP in offering possession of the Unit. The complainants communicated their grievances and concerns through various meetings, telephonic conversations and through emails with the representatives of the OP with respect to the delay in delivery and have also asked for refund of their money in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. The OP failed to pay heed to their requests. The complainant-3 vide emails dated 28.12.2019 and 05.01.2020 reiterated their request for refund along with interest, but the OP declined his request and till date, has failed to refund the amount paid by the complainants. Hence, the Complainants filed the present complaint.
The OP in their written statement/reply stated that: -
(i) The present complaint is devoid of any valid cause of action or true grievance qua the OP and in favour of the Respondent. All the averments/ allegations/ imputations contained in the complaint are denied specifically and in seriatim and nothing contained therein may be deemed to be admitted for mere lack of traverse.
(ii) The question in relation to interpretation and implementation of the terms of the agreement, which are of a contractual nature can neither be unfair trade practice nor deficiency in service. In support of this contention the OP relied upon the judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Saurabh Prakash Vs. DLF Universal Ltd. (2007) 1 SCC 228 and in Pawan Hans Ltd. Vs. UOI & Anr. (2003) 5 SCC 71.
(iii) The terms of the agreement including the terms relating to compensation are binding on both the parties and OP relied upon the judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharti Knitting Co. Vs. DHL World-wide Courier (1996) 4 SCC 704, that a person who signs a document containing certain contractual terms is bound by such contractual terms.
(iv) Under the Consumer Protection Act, any direction for making the payment to the Complainant can be given only by way of compensation under Section 14(1)(d). There is no other provision which authorizes any direction for payment. Section 14(1)(d) specifically provides that compensation can only be granted in a case where there is a specific allegation with particulars and proof of negligence. Relied upon – Consumer Unity and Trust Society, Jaipur Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, Bank of Baroda –(1995) 2 SCC 150.
(v) Service under Section 2(o) of the Act means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with housing construction. Relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank (2007) 6 SCC 711.
(vi) The complaint is not maintainable and is wholly misconceived as the complainant has twisted the facts of the case to suit his convenience and complaint has been filed with malafide intentions, which is neither sustainable in law nor otherwise. The complaint raises various triable issues, which cannot be adjudicated by this Commission. The complainant has made investment in the project. The complainant has other properties in their names, which they have deliberately omitted to disclose. Their apartment was their investment and therefore, the complainant does not fall under the ambit of consumer.
(vii) Till execution of the Apartment Buyer Agreement the Complainant made payment of Rs.46,81,5790/- towards the part payment of the total amount payable (Rs.1,46,97,050/-). It was agreed between the parties that the balance amount payable and other costs charges, deposits etc. shall be payable by the complainant in payment plan set out in Schedule IV or otherwise on a demand being raised by the OP. As per the agreement, the date of making an application to the competent authority for issuance of occupation and/or competition certificate (in full or part) shall be treated as the date of completion of the construction of the project or part thereof. As per the agreement the complainant confirmed and gave his specific consent to the same and has been barred from raising any objection in this regard.
(viii) As per ABA the construction of the apartment was to be completed within 42 months from the date of the agreement i.e. 24.08.2018 and there was no delay as the OP has applied for the issuance of the occupation certificate on 19.03.2018. There is no default on the part of the OP to complete the project in view of the fact that as per Clause 6.2(d) of ABA, the OP was entitled to an extension of time from the expiry of the completion date if the construction was delayed on account of a Force Majeure Event. It is the complainant who is not taking the possession after making the outstanding payment and completing the formalities. Due to non-compliance of the possession formalities the OP is suffering loss and is entitled for holding charges to be paid by the complainant for the concerned flat. As on date there is an outstanding of Rs.18,26,770/- out of which Rs.1,98,693/- is towards the interest on delayed payment. The offer of possession was sent to the complainant on 09.08.2019. Thus, there is default by the complainant. Complainant has committed breach of the terms and conditions between the parties. The OP applied for OC on 19.03.2018 and the issuance of the said certificate is delayed for reasons beyond the control of the OP. Clause 6.2 of the Agreement says that “in case there is any delay on account of the aforesaid reasons, the Developer shall keep the Buyer informed about the same along with a revised tentative date of possession.
(ix) The complainant has defaulted in making the payments in a timely manner. The OP was required to send repeated letters to the complainant and complainant was reminded of their due and outstanding payments towards the OP. The possession was offered to the Complainant on 09.08.2019 and complainant was required to clear the dues of the OPand take the possession of the unit. However, the complainant has not cleared the dues as demanded from them and have not come forward to clear the dues of the OP. The complainant does not have the funds to pay the OP, and is now resorting to make false allegations against the OP to make a false cause before this Commission.
(x) The complaint is barred by limitation under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant is guilty of suppression very suggestio falsi and has not approached this Commission with clean hand. The complainant has indulged in vexatious and speculative litigation and has claimed exorbitant amounts. The issue raised by the Complainant in the present complaint is no longer res-integra as the very same issue has already been adjudicated upon by various benches of this Commission and similar complaints have been dismissed. The filing of the present complaint is in fact an attempt on part of the complainant seeking to vary the terms of the ABA which is impermissible as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the Managing Director, Orix Auto Finance (India) 2 SCC 598 and in Bharathi Knitting Co. Vs. DHL World-Wide Courier reported in (1996) 4 SCC 704.
(xi) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in series of judgments reiterated by a three judge bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Chief Administrator, H.U.D.A. & Anr. Vs. Shakuntala Devi, Civil Appeal No. 7335 of 2008 that the Fora constituted under the C.P. Act are vested with jurisdiction under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act to award compensation to the consumers only for any loss or injury suffered by the consumers “due to the negligence of Respondent”. Proof that there was negligence and that it had caused the particular loss or injury and adjudication of such loss of injury is a “sine qua non” for the award of compensation under this provision. Where, there is no such proof, compensation cannot legally be awarded u/Sec. 14(1)(d) of the Act.
(xii) OP is not responsible for any mental suffering, if any, allegedly suffered by the complainant. OP has relied upon the judgement of this Commission in Lakshmi Cotton Traders Ltd. versus CWC 3 (1996) CPJ 22. The OP also places reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment titled Ghaziabad Development Authority versus Balbir Singh JT 2004(5) SC 17 which states that compensation is just equivalent for loss of goods or services suffered by a person. Compensation should not be a bonanza or a source of profit. A claim for compensation has necessarily to be based on a finding of a loss or injury and has to correlate with the extent of loss or injury.
(xiii) The complaint is bad for non-joinder of parties, as the complainant has not made ICICI Bank as a party to the present complaint.
Complainant in his rejoinder stated that this Commission in the case of Jivitesh Naval & Anr. Vs. M/s Emaar Mgf Land Ltd. & Anr. –CC/34/2015 decided on 02.11.2017, has held that:
“Also, I find no merit in the contention that the compensation stipulated in Clause 15(a) of the BBA is in the nature of a penalty attracting applicability of Section 74 of the India Contract Act. The aforesaid compensation is a unilateral and patently unfair term imposed by the builders upon the flat buyers. Having already paid the booking amount to the builder, they have no option but to sign on the dotted lines, since the failure to execute the agreement unilaterally drafted by the builder and imposed upon the flat builders is likely to result in the booking amount being forfeited by the builder. Therefore, executing an agreement containing such a term is nothing, but a consent given under coercion and cannot be said to be the result of the exercise of a free consent on the part of the flat buyer.
This Commission has in the past granted compensation in the form of interest paid Rs.18% per annum in the cases where refund has been allowed and compensation in the form of interest @ 12% per annum in the cases where possession of the house/plot has been directed. Therefore, a claim for refund by adding the agreed sale consideration to compensation in the form of simple interest @ 18% per annum from the date of each payment till the date of filing of the complaint cannot be said to be highly exaggerated or fanciful and made only with a view to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission, even if this Commission eventually grants a lesser compensation to the complainant.”
The Opposite Party has not only offered possession after a delay of 1 year from the promised date of possession but also the possession was offered in an incomplete condition as several finishing works like plastering, flooring, interiors, as well as various club facilities were yet to be completed. As a result of the frustration of the purpose of booking the said Unit due to the delay by the OP, the complainants had exercised their right to seek refund of the amount paid by them vide email dated 28.12.2019 and again vide email dated 05.01.2020. The OP declined their request and till date, has failed to refund the amount paid by the Complainants. By virtue of Clause 6.3 of the Agreement, the complainants are well within their rights to seek refund of the amounts paid by them along with interest. The OP in order to cover its tracks of defaulting in delivering timely possession of the allotted Unit has raised frivolous and arbitrary contentions, which are totally denied by the complainants. As per the agreement, the extension of time could only be granted for reasons which were beyond the control of the OP which is absent in the present case. None of the factors as stated by the OP were beyond its control, thus in no way there could have been such inordinate delay in execution of the project and timely delivery of the possession of the allotted Unit. The OP has failed to provide any; conclusive proof of any sort in order to corroborate their false claims. The period during which these factors have alleged to delay the construction pertains to the time when the OP continued to regularly demand and collect payments from the complainants.
Evidence by way of an Affidavit was filed by the complainant and OP(s) broadly on the lines of averments made in their respective complaint/reply. Written Synopsis was also filed by the Complainant and OP(s). The details of the flats allotted to the Complainant(s)/other relevant details of the case are given in the Table below.
Sr No
Particulars
1
Project Name/Location etc.
ATS Tourmaline
Sector-109-B, Gurgaon
2
Apartment No. (Revised Allocation)
No. 5162, 16th Floor, Tower-5
3
Size (Super Built up Area)
2150 sq.ft.
4
Date of application
24.02.2015
5
Date of allotment (Revised Allocation)
24.02.2015
6
Date of signing ABA (Revised Allocation)
24.02.2015
7
Committed date of possession as per ABA (with Grace period, if any)
42 months from ABA (24.08.2018)
8
D/o Offering Possession
09.08.2019
9
Actual D/o Physical Possession
Not taken
10
Total Consideration
Rs.1,46,97,050/-
11
Amount Paid
Rs.1,41,06,957/-
12
D/o Filing CC in NCDRC
08.07.2020
13
D/o Issue of Notice to OP(s)
21.07.2020
14
D/o Filing Reply/Written Statement by OP
16.10.2020
15
D/o filing Rejoinder by the Complainant
04.12.2020
16
D/o Filing Evidence by way of Affidavit by the Complainant
03.12.2020
17
D/o Filing Evidence by way of Affidavit by the OP
22.02.2021
18
D/o filing Written Synopsis by the Complainant
23.06.2021
18.03.2024 (addl.)
19
D/o filing Written Synopsis by the OP
05.04.2022
Heard counsels of both sides.
The contention of OPs that the Complaint is barred by limitation is not accepted. The OPs have failed to deliver the possession of the unit to the complainant till 09.08.2019, when the possession was offered for the first time and therefore, the cause of action is continuing till this date. Thereafter, the complainant sought refund for the first time on 28.12.2019. The cause of action for refund starts on this date or from a date when it was declined by the OP. The complaint having been filed on 08.07.2020 is well within the limitation period of 2 years. The contention that complainant is not a consumer as he has purchased the unit for commercial purpose is also rejected as no such evidence has been adduced by the OPs in this regard. It has been observed by this Commission in various cases (Kavita Ahuja Vs Shipra Estates Ltd, CC 137 of 2010, decided on 12.02.2015, Santosh Johri Vs M/s Unitech Ltd, CC 429 of 2014 and connected Cases, decided on 08.06.2015, Aloke Anand Vs M/s Ireo Grace Pvt Ltd & Others, CC no 1277 of 2017 decided on 01.11.2021) that purchase of a house can only be for a commercial purpose if the purchaser is engaged in the business of purchasing and selling houses or plots on a regular basis, solely with a view to make profit by way of sale of such houses, if the house is purchased purely as an investment and the purchaser is not undertaking the trading of houses on regular basis, then it would be difficult to say that he had purchased it for commercial purpose. The plea of OP that delay was due to force majeure circumstances is not valid as even after a gap of about one year from the committed date given in the ABA, possession of flat was not given. There is no documentary evidence to support the contention of the Opposite Parties that the reasons pleaded by them, can be construed as ‘Force Majeure. Delay in approval for grant of OC by competent authority cannot be treated as force majeure instance as OP has not placed on record any evidence/documents to show that the entire delay was attributable to the granting authority and not due to any deficiency in application and/or any objections raised by the granting authority. The contention of the OPs that the parties are bound by the agreement is also not acceptable. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raglivan II (2019) CPJ 34 (SC) decided on 02.04.2019 held that “a term of a contract will not be final and binding if it is shown that the flat purchasers had no option to sign on the dotted line, on a contract framed by the builder ......... the incorporation of one sided clause in an agreement constitute an unfair trade practice as per Section 2 (r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since it adopts unfair methods or practices for the purpose of selling flats by the builder ........., the appellant-builder cannot seek to bind the respondent with such one sided contractual terms.”
No doubt in the present case the delay is only of about one year, which is not un-reasonable and refund has been sought after offer of possession. The committed date of possession as per Agreement was 24.08.2018, possession was offered on 09.08.2019 and the complainant first time made a request for refund through his email dated 28.12.2019. OP has contended that as the offer of possession was made with OC and till that time the complainant has not sought refund, he is obligated to take possession and is not entitled to refund and in case he seeks refund, OP is entitled to forfeiture of earnest money which is 15% of the basic sale price (BSP).
We have carefully gone through the facts of the case, the evidence adduced by the parties and other relevant documents, especially the booking form, allotment letter and Apartment Buyer Agreement (ABA). Clause 4.4 of the ABA states that 15% of the BSP shall be considered as earnest money to ensure the performance, compliance and fulfilment of the obligations and responsibilities of the buyer under the agreement. Clause 6.3 pertains to delay in completion of the project as per committed date and liability of the OP to pay compensation in such situation and right of the allottee to seek refund in such situations. Clause 6.3 is reproduced below:-
“6.3 Subject to the provisions of Paragraph 6.2 herein above, in the event the Developer fails or neglects to complete the construction on or before the Completion Date and/or on such date as may be extended by mutual consent of the Parties, then the Developer shall be liable to pay to the Allottee(s) a compensation for the entire period of such delay computed at the rate of Rs.5/- (Rupees Five only) per month per square feet of the Super Built Up Area of the Apartment.
In the alternative, the Developer, at the request of the Buyer, may refund the total amounts already received in respect of the said Apartment together with simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum to the Buyer. It has been agreed between the Parties that upon such repayment, this Agreement shall stand cancelled / revoked and the Buyer shall not be entitled to claim any loss and/or damages whatsoever. The said refund by the Developer to the Buyer shall be full and final satisfaction and settlement of all claims of the Buyer under this Agreement irrespective of whether the Buyer accepts the said payment from the Developer or not. Upon sending the Cheque / demand draft of such payment to the Buyer the Developer shall be entitled to deal with the Apartment as it may deem fit and proper.”
It is a case of the complainant that under this clause, on account of delay in completion of the project, which in the present case is one year, he is entitled to get refund of his amount along with simple interest @12% p.a. OP on the other hand is relying on clause 10.2 to 10.5, which are reproduced below:-
“10.2 Upon receiving / gaining knowledge of any Buyer's Event of Default stated above, the Developer may, without prejudice to his rights to enforce specific performance of the terms and conditions stipulated herein, through a written notice served upon the Buyer terminate this Agreement from such date as may be specified in the written notice.
10.3 However, notwithstanding the aforesaid absolute rights of the Developer to terminate this Agreement, the Developer may, at its sole discretion, call upon the Buyer by way of a written notice ("Buyer's Default Notice") to rectify / cure the Buyer's Event of Default within the time period as may be specified therein. Upon failure of the Buyer to rectify / cure the Buyer's Event of Default within the time period stipulated in the Buyer's Default Notice, without prejudice to any other right or remedy available to the Developer under law or as envisaged in this Agreement, the Developer shall have the right to forthwith terminate this Agreement without any further notice / intimation to the Buyer.
10.4 On and from the date of such termination on account of Buyer's Event of Default as mentioned herein above ("Termination Date"), the Parties mutually agree that:
(i) The Developer shall, out of the entire amounts paid by the Buyer to the Developer till the Cancellation Date, forfeit the entire Earnest Money and any other dues payable by the Buyer including interest on delayed payments as specified in this Agreement;
(ii) After the said forfeiture, the Developer shall refund the balance amount to the Buyer or to his banker / financial institution, as the case may be, without any interest;
(iii) On and from the Termination Date, the Buyer shall be left with no right, title, interest, claim, lien, authority whatsoever either in respect of the Apartment or under this Agreement and the Developer shall be released and discharged of all its liabilities and obligations under this Agreement.
(iv) On and from the Cancellation Date, the Developer shall be entitled, without any claim or interference of the Buyer, to convey, sell, transfer and/or assign the Apartment in favour of third party(ies) or otherwise deal with it as the Developer may deem fit and appropriate, in such a manner that this Agreement was never executed with the Buyer and without any claim of the Buyer to any sale proceeds of such conveyance, sale, transfer and/or assignment of the Apartment in favour of third party(ies).
10.5 The said refund by the Developer to the Buyer as stated in Clause 10.4(ii) herein above, sent through cheque demand draft by registered post acknowledgement due or by courier at the address of the Buyer mentioned herein, shall be full and final satisfaction and settlement of all claims of the Buyer pursuant to this Agreement, irrespective of whether the Buyer accepts / encashes the said cheque / demand draft or not.”
Perusal of these clauses show that no-doubt under these clauses, the OP has the right to terminate the agreement in the event of buyers default and on such termination the OP is entitled to forfeit the entire earnest money and any other dues payable by the allottee including interest on delayed payments as specified in the agreement and refund the balance amount to the allottee. However, it is contended by the complainant that in this case there is no default or violation of any condition of the agreement by the complainant and moreover even if assuming that there is any default, the OP has not exercised its right to terminate the agreement so far. Hence, the OP is not entitled to forfeit the earnest money or any other amount. On a careful perusal of the clauses 10.2 to 10.5 cited above, we are in agreement with the contentions of the complainant. Hence, we are of the considered view that in the present case, notwithstanding that the delay in offer of possession is of one year, the refund has been sought only after the offer of possession with O.C. Clause 6.3 entitles the complainant to seek refund in case of any delay beyond the committed date and the agreement in question has not been terminated by the OP on account of any alleged default on the part of the complainant, the complainant in the present case is entitled to seek refund of his principal amount along with simple interest @ 12% p.a. as per clause 6.3 of the agreement signed between the parties.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, and after giving a thoughtful consideration to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, various pleas raised by the learned Counsel for the Parties, the Consumer Complaint is allowed/disposed off with the following directions/reliefs:-
(i) The OPs shall refund the entire principal amount of Rs.1,41,06,957/- (Rupees one crore forty one lakh six thousand nine hundred and fifty seven only) to the complainant, alongwith compensation in the form of simple interest @ 12% per annum from the date of each payment till the date of refund. The principal amount refundable mentioned in this para is subject to verification of actual amount paid by the complainant based on receipts etc.
(ii) The OPs shall pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainants.
(iii) The payment in terms of this order shall be paid within two months from today, failing which, the amount payable at the end of two months from the date of this order, shall carry interest @15% from the expiry of two months from the date of this order till the date of actual payment.
(iv) In case the complainant has taken loan from Bank(s)/other financial institution(s) and the same/any portion of the same is still outstanding, the refund amount will be first utilized for repaying the outstanding amount of such loans and balance will be retained by the complainant.The complainant would submit the requisite documents from the concerned bank(s)/financial institution(s) along with bank account details to the OP(s) within four weeks from receipt of this order to enable them to issue refund cheques/drafts or make payments through NEFT accordingly.
The pending IAs, in any of the Consumer Complaints, if any, also stand disposed off.