Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/334/2018

Sandeep Sukhija - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Subhash Chand & Sapna Khurana Adv.

05 Mar 2019

ORDER

 STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

1. Sandeep Sukhija son of Shri Mohan Lal Sukhija, resident of House No.3-D, Kailash Nagar, Fazilka Punjab, now present residing at House No.5058/1, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh.
2. Manoj Kumar Wayyar son of Shri Ramesh Chander, resident of D-2704, Street No.6, Adarsh Nagar, Fazilka.

…… Complainants

V e r s u s

1. Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd., 1202-1204, Antriksh Bhawan, 22, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001, through its MD.
2. Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd., SCO No.183, 184, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its Sr. Executive (Sales and Marketing)/Branch Manager/ Authorized Signatory.

…..Opposite Parties

Argued by:-     Sh.Subhash Chand, Advocate for the complainants.

                       Sh.Rajiv K. Bhatia, Advocate for opposite parties.

===================================================

Mrs.Shashi Bala Wadhwa wife of Mr.Shamsher Bahadur Wadhwa and

Mr.Shamsher Bahadur Wadhwa son of Sh.Punnu Ram

Both residents of House No.54, Sector-7, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra, Haryana.

…… Complainants

V e r s u s

1. The Managing Director, M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd., 115, Ansal Bhawan 16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.
2. M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd., 115, Ansal Bhawan 16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.

2^nd Address:-

M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd., SCO 183-184, Sector 9C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

3. M/s Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. Through its Authorized Signatory/Managing Directors having Branch Office at SCO No.337-338, Ground Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

…..Opposite Parties

Argued by:-     Sh.Inderpal Singh Bhinder, Advocate for the complainants.

                       Sh.Rajiv K.Bhatia, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 and 2.

                       Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for opposite party no.3.

===================================================

Complaints under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

BEFORE:      JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                     MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

                     MR.RAJESH K ARYA, MEMBER.

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                By this order, we propose to dispose of aforesaid two consumer complaints, filed by the respective complainants. Arguments in these complaints were heard in common, on 13.02.2019. In both the complaints, referred to above, there has been an inordinate delay, on the part of the opposite parties, in offering and delivering possession of the respective units. In consumer complaint bearing no.334 of 2018, the complainants have sought possession of the unit therein, alongwith delayed compensation etc. whereas, in consumer complaint bearing no.168 of 2018, the complainants have sought refund of the amount paid, alongwith interest etc. Since the issues involved, except minor variations, here and there, of law and facts are the same, as such, during arguments, it was agreed by the contesting parties, that both the complaints be disposed of, by passing a consolidated order.

2.         To dictate order, facts are being taken from Consumer Complaint bearing No.334 of 2018 titled as Sandeep Sukhija and another Vs Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited and another. This complaint has been filed by the complainants, seeking possession of plot bearing no.B/440, measuring 110 square yards, purchased by them, in resale, for their residential purpose, from Vijay Gopal Jindal and Rekha Jindal, for basic sale price of Rs.11,00,000/-, plus EDC, IDC etc. totaling Rs.11,98,725 ps.,  in a project launched by   the opposite parties, under the name and style ‘Golf Links-II, Sector 116, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab. Since, at the time of resale of the said plot, predecessors of the complainants had already paid the entire sale consideration, to the opposite parties, as such, the said amount was repaid by the complainants to them, vide Full and Final Settlement Agreement dated 19.12.2012 Annexure C-1. In this manner, the complainants stepped into the shoes of original allottees of the plot, in question. It is specific case of the complainants that despite the fact that the entire sale consideration stood received by the opposite parties, yet, possession of the plot, in question, was not offered and delivered to them, for want of development at the project site, which otherwise was to be delivered on or before 28.02.2016 i.e.  total 42 months (36 months plus (+) 6 months extended period) from the date of execution of the Agreement i.e. from 01.09.2012, as provided under Clause 5.1 thereof. Number of requests, were made to  the opposite parties, to complete development of the project and deliver possession of the plot, but to of no avail. It was stated that the aforesaid act and conduct of  the opposite parties, amounted to deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice, on their part. Hence this complaint has been filed seeking directions to  the opposite parties to deliver possession of the plot, in question; compensation by way of interest @18% p.a. on the deposited amount for the period of delay; compensation for mental agony & physical harassment to the tune of Rs.3 lacs; Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses etc.
3.         Upon notice, joint reply by way of affidavit, was filed by the opposite parties, wherein, the fact regarding purchase of plot, in question, by the complainants, in resale; price of the plot mentioned in the complaint; entire sale consideration paid by the complainants towards price of the plot, in the manner explained in the complaint; execution of buyer’s agreement dated 01.09.2012; and mentioning of offering/delivering possession of the plot, in question, within a maximum period of 42 months, as stated above, is not seriously disputed. However, it was stated that the plot, in question, was purchased for future gain, as such, the complainants being investors, would not fall within the definition of consumer, as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of Act. It was further stated that the period of 36 months plus 6 months, for delivering possession of the plot, was tentative. Since the said period was to run from the date of receiving requisite approvals/sanctions from the Competent Authorities, as such, time was not to be considered as essence of contract. It was pleaded that development work at the project site is near completion; basic amenities are in existence at the project site; completion certificate has been applied for, with the Competent Authorities; as such, possession of the plot will be delivered shortly to the complainants, on receipt of the said certificate. It was pleaded stated that since the complainants are subsequent purchasers, in that event, they are not consumers. The remaining averments were denied being wrong. It was prayed that the complaint having no substance, be dismissed.
4.         The parties led evidence, in support of their cases.
5.         We have heard the contesting parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the cases, very carefully.
6.         The first question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainants are speculators, and that they have purchased the plot, in question, for earning profits i.e. for resale, as and when there is escalation in the prices of real estate, therefore, they would not fall within the definition of consumer, as defined by Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act., as alleged by  the opposite parties. It may be stated here that there is nothing, on record to show that the complainants are property dealers and are indulged in sale and purchase of property, on regular basis. In their complaint, it has been specifically stated by the complainants that the plot, in question, was purchased by them for their personal use. The Act did not debar for purchase of a plot/unit, jointly, by any of the relatives, in order to use it for residential purpose, jointly alongwith their families. Thus, in the absence of any cogent evidence, in support of the objection raised by  the opposite parties mere bald assertion to that effect, cannot be taken into consideration. In a case titled as Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jai Krishna Estate Developer Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (1) CPJ 31, decided by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it was held that the buyer(s) of the residential unit(s), would be termed as consumer(s), unless it is proved that he or she had booked the same for commercial purpose. Similar view was reiterated by the National Commission, in DLF Universal Limited Vs Nirmala Devi Gupta,  2016 (2) CPJ 316. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the present case.
7.         It is not in dispute that the complainants purchased the plot, in question, in the project of the opposite parties, in resale, for basic sale price of Rs.11,00,000/- plus external development charges, etc., referred to above, which stood paid, in the manner, explained above. Admittedly, promise was made to hand over possession of the developed plot, within a total period of 42 months (36 months plus 6 months extended period) from the date of execution of the agreement dated 01.09.2012. End date to hand over possession of the plot, in question, stood expired on 28.02.2016, however, nothing was done. In the written reply filed, it was stated by the opposite parties that development at the project site is near completion; basic amenities are in existence at the project site; completion certificate has been applied for, with the Competent Authorities; and possession of the plot will be delivered shortly to the complainants, on receipt of the said certificate.  From this statement of the opposite parties, it is clear that even by the date, when this complaint was filed or even till the date of arguments therein, the project was not complete. As stated above, possession of the developed plot was to be delivered on or before 28.02.2016, however, the opposite parties failed to do so. As such, there is a delay on their part, which act amounted to deficiency in providing service and negligence. It appears that promise to handover possession of the plot, in question, was made without any intention to do so, as such, this act also amounts to adoption of unfair trade practice on their part.

                Furthermore, there is nothing on record to show that   the opposite parties suffered any force majeure circumstances, on account of which, development at the project site, could not be completed by the stipulated date. In the absence of any force majeure circumstances having been faced by the opposite parties, they were bound to deliver possession of the developed plot, by 28.02.2016, as such, time was, unequivocally made the essence of contract, by way of Clause 5.1 of the Agreement, referred to above.  The opposite parties cannot evade their  liability, merely by saying that since the words “shall endeavor” was mentioned in Clause 5.1 of the Agreement, for delivery of possession of the plot, as such, time is not to be considered as essence of the contract. The act of non-mentioning of exact date in the allotment letter/Agreement is violation of CHAPTER II Regulation of Promotion of Construction, Sale, Transfer and Management of Apartments, Plots and Properties, Condition no. 3(2) (g) of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (PAPRA), which says that the project proponent is duty bound to specify, in writing, the date by which possession of the residential plot/unit is to be handed over and it shall hand over such possession accordingly. Relevant contents of Condition no.3(2) (g) of the PAPRA are reproduced below:-

“(g) specify, in writing, the date by which possession of the plot or apartment is to be handed over and he shall hand over such possession accordingly”;

Furthermore, non-mentioning of exact date of delivery of possession of the plot(s)/unit(s) in the Buyer’s Agreement/ allotment letter, is an unfair trade practice on the part of the Builder. The builder is bound to mention the exact/specific date of delivery of possession of the plots/unit(s) to the allottees/purchasers thereof. It was so said by the Hon`ble National Commission, in Rajeev Nohwar & Anr. V/S Sahajanand Hi Tech Construction Pvt Ltd, 2016 (2) CPR 769. Relevant portion of the said case reads thus:-

“Merely making possession by a particular date will also not meet the requirement of law and the promotor is under a legal mandate to stipulate a specific date for delivery of possession of the flat in the agreement which he executes with the flat buyer”.

In view of above, the plea of   the opposite parties, in this regard, also stands rejected.

8.         Furthermore, from the contents of reply filed by  the opposite parties, to the effect that the period to  deliver possession of the plot, as mentioned in the Agreement, was to run, once all necessary approvals and sanctions have been obtained from the Competent Authorities, it is proved that the project in question was launched and sold to the buyers including the complainants, without having necessary sanctions in their hands. Collecting money from the perspective buyers and selling the project, without obtaining the required permissions and sanctions is an unfair trade practice on the part of the project proponent. It was so said by the National Commission, in a case titled as M/s Ittina Properties Pvt. Ltd. & 3 Ors. Vs. Vidya Raghupathi & Anr., First Appeal No. 1787 of 2016, decided on 31 May 2018. Relevant part of the said order reads thus:-

“…………….This Commission in Brig. (Retd.) Kamal Sood Vs. M/s. DLF Universal Ltd., (2007) SCC Online NCDRC 28, has observed that it is unfair trade practice on the part of the Builder to collect money from the perspective buyers without obtaining the required permission and that it is duty of the Builder to first obtain the requisite permissions and sanctions and only thereafter collect the consideration money from the purchasers.

It is an admitted fact that the sale deeds were executed in the year 2006 and by 2009 the completion certificate was not issued. The Occupancy Certificate was issued only on 25.09.2017 during the pendency of these Appeals before this Commission. Allotting Plots or Apartments before procuring the relevant sanctions and approvals is per se deficiency…………”

                The principle of law, laid down in the aforesaid case, is fully applicable to the present case. In view of above, it can safely be said that by adopting unfair trade practice, the project was sold/launched by  the opposite parties.

9.         Another objection was raised by the opposite parties, that since the complainants are re-allottees, as such, they are not consumers. It is not in dispute, that the complainants had purchased the plot, in resale, in the manner, referred to above. It is well settled law that once the property is transferred/endorsed, in the name of the fresh buyer(s) from the original owner, he/she, is vested with all the rights and interests, accrued in favour of his/her predecessor(s), as he/she stepped into her/his shoes. It was also so said by the National Consumer Commission, New Delhi in case Vatika Limited   Vs Mr. Rajneesh Aggarwal, Revision Petition No. 525 of 2013, decided on 22.07.2014, wherein the complainant was the fourth subsequent allottee. In that case, the National Commission, held as under:-  

“So far as the case of Raje Ram is concerned, the facts of the present case are totally different. In the present case, the respondent/complainant had purchased the apartment in question from the first transferee on 29.4.2006 when the construction had not been completed and   purchase/transfer of the apartment was duly approved by the petitioner company after charging Rs.65,840/- as transfer charges. In the circumstances, the petitioner company could not deny its role as a service provider to the respondent/complainant and has to be held liable for any deficiency in service with reference to the terms and conditions of the agreement which was made equally applicable to the complainant also consequent upon the approval of the assignment by the petitioner company on 30.4.2006 on payment of the transfer charges to the petitioner company. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in the revision petition and the same is dismissed accordingly but with no order as to costs.”

                The principle of law laid down in the aforesaid case, decided by the National Commission is fully applicable to the present case. In view of the above, argument raised by the opposite parties, being devoid of merit, is rejected.

10.         Under above circumstances, it is held that the complainants, in this complaint, are entitled to get possession of the plot, in question.  Now the question that needs consideration, is, as what relief can be granted to a consumer, in case of delay in offering possession of residential plot/unit purchased, in the absence of any force majeure circumstances having been faced by the builder. The said question, came up for consideration before this Commission in Ankur Gupta Vs. Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd. and another, Consumer Case No.309 of 2016 decided on 22.11.2016, wherein, it was observed as under:-

“What relief can be granted to a consumer, in case of delay, in offering possession, came up for consideration before the Hon’ble National Commission, in a case titled as Parsvnath Exotica Ghaziabad Resident's Association Vs. Parsvnath Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., consumer complaint no.45/2015, decided by the Hon’ble National Commission, on 06.05.2016, wherein, it was argued by the project proponent that at the maximum, as provided in the Agreement, the consumer will be entitled to claim penalty for delayed compensation @Rs.5/- per square feet, per month. Noting that in case of delay in making payment, the project proponent was charging heavy penal interest, instead of penal amount, the interest on the deposited amount, for the period of delay was granted, by holding as under:-

“Though, the Agreement between the developer and the flat buyers provides for payment of compensation in case of delay @ Rs.5/- per square feet of the super area per month, such clauses have been found to be unfair trade practice and have been consistently rejected by this Commission in several decision, including  Consumer Complaint No. 427 of 2014 Satish Kumar Pandey & Ors. Vs. Unitech Ltd. and connected matters decided on 08.6.2015.  Therefore, the aforesaid clauses cannot be taken into consideration, while determining the compensation payable to the members of the complainant association for the aforesaid delay in completion of construction.”

Not only this, in another case, titled as Capt. Gurtaj Singh Sahni & anr. Vs Manager, Unitech Limited & anr., consumer complaint bearing no.603/2014, decided on 02.05.2016, the Hon'ble National Commission, directed the opposite party/builder to pay interest  on the deposited amount, for the period of delay, till delivery of possession of the unit. Relevant contents of the said order reads thus:-

“8.   If the compensation for the delay in construction is restricted to what is stipulated in the Buyers Agreement, there will be no pressure upon the builder to complete the construction since he will be more than happy to keep on paying paltry compensation of about 3% per annum of the capital investment, instead of arranging funds at much higher cost, to complete the construction.

9.      xxxxxxxxxxxxx

10.    For the reasons stated hereinabove, the complaints are disposed of with the following directions:

(1)     xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

(2)     The opposite party shall pay compensation in the form of simple interest @ 12% per annum from the expected date of possession till the date on which the possession is actually offered to the complainants after completing the construction in all respects and obtaining the requisite completion certificate.”

Thus, keeping in view the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission, in the cases, referred to above, if interest @12% on the deposited amount for the period of delay, till delivery of possession of the unit, is awarded, that would meet the ends of justice.”

Not only as above, in H.P. Housing Board Vs. Janak Gupta [2009] INSC 627 (26 March 2009) (Civil Appeal No. 6346 of 2002), it was clearly held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that in the cases of delay, in delivery of possession, award of interest @ 12% per annum, on the deposited amount, for the period of delay, would meet the ends of justice.

                Taking note of above-said proposition of law, in the present case also, ends of justice will meet, if interest on the entire deposited amount, is granted for delayed period, to the complainants, whereof 28.02.2016 i.e. 42 months (36 months plus 6 months extended period) from the date of execution of the agreement dated 01.09.2012, till possession of the plot is actually delivered, complete in all respects. Apart from that, the opposite parties are also liable to compensate the complainants, for causing them mental agony, physical harassment and also financial loss.

11.         Now coming to the connected consumer complaint bearing no.168 of 2018, the complainants have sought refund of the amount paid alongwith interest, compensation etc., on account of the reason that there is an inordinate delay in offering possession of the unit/flat purchased in the project of opposite parties no.1 and 2 i.e. M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited. Possession of the unit, in this case, was to be delivered on or before 28.09.2014 i.e. 36 months (30 months plus 6 months grace period), from the date of execution of Agreement dated 29.09.2011, but till the date of filing of this complaint (CC No.168 of 2018), it was not so offered and at the same time, during arguments, in this complaint also, no specific date/period for the same, has still been given by Counsel for opposite parties no.1 and 2, when asked for by this Commission.  Even this much has not been proved, as to at what stage, construction of the flat(s) in the said project (in this complaint) has reached. It is settled law that when there is a material violation on the part of the builder, in not handing over possession by the stipulated date, the purchaser is not bound to accept the offer, even if the same is made at a belated stage and on the other hand, can seek refund of amount paid. It was so said by the National Commission, in a case titled as Aashish Oberai Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited, Consumer Case No. 70 of 2015, decided on 14 Sep 2016 and  M/s. Emaar MGF Land Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Dr.Manuj Chhabra, First Appeal No.1028 of 2015, decided on 19.04.2016. This view has recently been reiterated by the National Commission, in the case titled as Sujay Bharatiya & Anr. Vs. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd., Consumer Case No. 1814 of 2017 decided on 05.07.2018. Relevant part of the said order reads thus:-

“This Commission in Emaar MGF Land Ltd. & Anr. V. Amit Puri (First Appeal No.250 of 2014), decided on 30.03.2015, has held that if the Developer fails to deliver possession of the allotted plot/flat within the stipulated time, the allottee is under no obligation to accept an alternative plot. At the cost of repetition, we may reiterate that in the event of Developer failing to deliver possession of the property within the stipulated period, for any reason, save and except a force majeure condition, agreed to between the contracting parties, an allottee cannot be compelled to accept an alternate site/plot and he would be within his rights to seek refund of the amount deposited with the Developer against allotment”.

12.         In this connected consumer complaint bearing no.168 of 2018, other objections were also raised by the Company i.e. the complaint filed is beyond limitation; the dispute being related to contractual nature,  consumer complaint is not maintainable and only a Civil Court can decide the case; the complainants should not have filed this complaint, as the Company has committed to pay Pre-EMI to opposite party No.3 from which they have raised housing loan under subvention scheme, till possession of the unit is delivered to them. At the time of arguments also, it was contended with vehemence by Counsel for opposite parties no.1 and 2, in this complaint, that though there was a specific period contained in the Tripartite Agreement for making payment of Pre EMI on the part of the builder, but since the construction and development of the project was going to be delayed, as such, opposite parties no.1 and 2 further committed to pay the same till offer of possession of the unit(s) is made, as such, under these circumstances, no loss will be caused to the complainants.
13.         First coming to the objection raised in connected consumer complaint bearing no.168 of 2018, to the effect that this complaint  is barred by limitation, it may be stated here that since it is an admitted fact, that possession of the unit, has not been offered to the complainants, for want of construction and development activities, as such, there was a continuing cause of action in favour of the complainants, in view of principle of law down, in  Lata Construction & Ors. Vs. Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal   Shah  and Anr., II 2000 (1) CPC 269=AIR 1999 SC 380 and Meerut Development Authority Vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, IV (2012) CPJ 12 (SC),  wherein it was held that when possession of the residential units is not offered, there is a continuing cause of action, in favour of the allottee/buyer. Objection raised in this regard, as such, is rejected.

                Furthermore, since the Company is still utilizing the amount paid by the complainants, and has not refunded the same, as such, in that event also, there is a continuing cause of action in their favour, in view of law laid down by the National Commission in KNK Promoters & Developers Versus S.N. Padmini, Revision Petition No. 340 of 2011, decided on 31 Aug 2016 and Saroj Kharbanda Versus Bigjo's Estates Limited, First Appeal No. 986 of 2016, decided on 01 Feb 2018, in which it was held that the builder cannot withhold the amount deposited by the allottee and if it is so, there is a continuing cause of action in favour of the allottee, to file a complaint seeking refund of the said amount.

                Now coming to the objection in connected consumer complaint bearing no.168 of 2018, that the dispute being related to contractual nature, the consumer complaint is not maintainable, and only a Civil Court can decide the case. It may be stated here that the complainants hired the services of the opposite parties no.1 and 2, for purchasing the built-up, possession of which was to delivered within a maximum period of 36 months, as envisaged under Clause 5.1 of the Agreement. By not doing so, opposite parties no.1 and 2 have breached the terms and conditions of the agreement, leading to deficiency in providing service, negligence and adoption of unfair trade practice. In Narne Construction P. Ltd., etc. etc. Vs.  Union of India and Ors. Etc., II (2012) CPJ 4 (SC), it was held that when a person applies for the allotment of a building or site or for a flat constructed by the Development Authority and enters into an agreement with the Developer, or the Contractor, the nature of transaction is covered by the expression ‘service’ of any description. Housing construction or building activity carried on by a private or statutory body constitutes ‘service’ within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. Similar principle of law was laid down, in Haryana Agricultural Marketing Board Vs. Bishambar Dayal Goyal & Ors. (AIR 2014 S.C. 1766). Under these circumstances, the complaint involves the consumer dispute, and the same is maintainable before this Commission. Not only as above, Section 3 of the Act provides an alternative remedy. Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments only that the complainants have a remedy to file a suit, in the Civil Court, the alternative remedy provided under Section 3 of the Act, can also be availed of by them, as they fall within the definition of consumer. In this view of the matter, objection taken by the opposite parties no.1 and 2, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail and the same stands rejected.

                At the same time, it is held that the complainants cannot be made to wait for an indefinite period, at the whims and fancies of opposite parties no.1 and 2. If parties no.1 and 2 had committed the complainants, to pay Pre-EMI to opposite party no.3, beyond the period mentioned in the Tripartite Agreement, on account of their own fault, in not completing the construction and development within the stipulated period and that too after receiving substantial amount from them, and also by way of getting the loan amount released, then it cannot be made a tool to say that the Company has got blanket immunity and can delay the project for an indefinite period. The interpretation as put forth by Counsel for opposite parties no.1 and 2, if accepted, it shall defeat the entire object of the Act, which is meant to protect and promote the rights of the consumer(s). It is therefore held that if opposite parties no.1 and 2 have extended its obligation of making payment of Pre-EMI to opposite party no.3, beyond the period mentioned in the Tripartite Agreement, they cannot take any benefit out of that, to defeat genuine claim of the complainants.

14.         No other point, was urged, by the contesting parties.
15.         For the reasons recorded above, both the complaints are partly accepted, with costs, in the following manner: -

In Consumer Complaint bearing No.334 of 2018, the opposite parties, jointly and severally are directed as under:-

1. To hand over physical possession of the plot, in question, to the complainants, within a period of two (02) months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, complete in all respects, after obtaining necessary completion certificate, from the competent authorities, on receipt of legally due amount from them (complainants), towards remaining sale consideration, if any, strictly as per the Agreement therein.
2. To execute and get registered the sale deed, in respect of the plot, in question, in favour of the complainants, within two months, from the date of handing over possession of the plot as mentioned in clause (i) above, on payment of registration and stamp duty charges, by them to the Registering Authorities, if they are liable to be pay the same, as per the Agreement.
3. To pay compensation, by way of interest @12% p.a., on the entire deposited amount, to the complainants, from 28.02.2016 (promised date) till 28.02.2019, within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, thereafter, the said amount shall carry penal interest @15% p.a. instead of 12% p.a. from the date of default, till realization.
4. To pay compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the entire deposited amount, w.e.f. 01.03.2019, onwards (per month), till actual delivery of actual physical possession of the unit, by the 10^th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a., from the date of default, till payment is made.
5. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, on account of mental agony, physical harassment, caused to the complainants, deficiency in providing service and adopting unfair trade practice, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the same shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing this complaint till realization.
6. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the complainants, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the same shall also carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing this complaint till realization.

In Consumer Complaint bearing No.168 of 2018, opposite parties no.1 and 2, jointly and severally are directed as under:-

1.   To refund the entire amount, actually paid by the complainants from their  own sources/pocket, at the time of booking and thereafter also, towards part price of unit, alongwith interest @12% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards.
2.   To refund the amount to the complainants, if any, which had been paid by them to opposite party no.3, towards equal monthly installments/Pre-EMI, if any, on the loan amount, as it was the liability of parties no.1 and 2 only, as per their own commitment, under subvention scheme, as explained above. 
3.   To repay the entire loan amount to opposite party no.3, released by it, in favour of opposite parties no.1 and 2, in respect of the unit, in question, alongwith Pre-EMIs, if any due, till date. It is also made clear that till the time, the entire loan amount is not repaid to opposite party no.3, opposite parties no.1 and 2 shall be bound to pay the equal monthly installments/Pre-EMI to opposite party no.3, till realization.
4.   To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.75,000/- for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainants, as also escalation in prices.
5.   To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.22,000/- to the complainants.
6.   The payment of awarded amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(i), [(ii) (if any)], (iv) and (v) shall be made by opposite parties no.1 and 2 to the complainants, within a period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the amount mentioned at sr.no.(i) and [(ii) (if any)] thereafter shall carry penal interest @14% p.a., instead of @12%, from the date of default and interest @12 % p.a., on the amounts mentioned at sr.nos. (iv) and (v), from the date of filing of this complaint, till realization, besides compliance of other directions given.
7.   Complaint against opposite party no.3 is dismissed with no order as to costs, subject to directions aforesaid.

16.         Certified Copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge and one copy be placed in the file of connected case, referred to above.
17.         The files be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

05.03.2019

Sd/-

 [JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

Sd/-

[RAJESH K ARYA]

 MEMBER

Rg.