1. The present bunch of Appeals has been filed against the Orders dated 10.11.2016, 23.03.2017, 31.03.2017, 21.04.2017, 17.05.2017, 11.07.2017 & 28.05.2018 passed by the UT Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as State Commission), whereby the Complaints filed by the Complainants before the State Commission were allowed and the Opposite Party DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the OP Developer) was directed to hand over the physical possession of the units allotted to the Complainants; execute and get registered the sale deed in respect of the Units; Pay compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the deposited amounts to the Complainants from 31.12.2013 till 30.11.2016 within 45 days failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @15% p.a. instead of 12% p.a.; Pay compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the deposited amount w.e.f. 1.12.2016 onwards (per month) till possession is delivered, by 10^th of the following month, failing which, penal interest @15% p.a. instead of 12% p.a., from the date of default, till the payment is made and to pay compensation of ₹1,50,000/- on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service alongwith ₹35,000/- towards cost of litigation within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which the said amount shall carry interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing the Complaint till realisation.

2. Since the facts and questions of law involved in all these Appeals are similar except for minor variation in the dates and events, these Appeals are being disposed off through this common Order.  However, for the sake of convenience, FA No. 1742 of 2016 is treated as the lead case and the facts enumerated hereinafter are taken from Consumer Complaint No. 375/2016.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the OP Builder launched a residential Project in the name and style as ‘DLF Valley Panchkula’, located at sector 3, Pinjore-Kalka Urban Complex, Panchkula, in the year 2010.  Ms. Harbhajan Kaur (hereinafter referred to as original allottee) was allotted Floor No. DVF-E4/10-SF on 22.03.2010.  Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Agreement’) was executed between the OP Builder and Original Allottee on 31.12.2010. As per Clause 11(a) of the Agreement, the OP Developer was obliged to complete the construction of the said Project within 24 months (2 years) from the date of Agreement unless there is delay due to a force majeure condition or due to reasons mentioned in clause 11(b) and 11(c).  Allured by the assurances given by the representative of the OP Developer that the construction of the Project is in full swing and he will get the independent floor with all modern facilities by the end of the year 2012, Vinay Narwal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Complainant’) purchased an independent floor No. DVF-E4/10-SF in resale from Ms. Harbhajan Kaur (original allottee) vide Agreement to Sell dated 10.02.2012 and the OP Developer transferred the said Floor in his name vide letter dated 23.02.2012.  Despite receiving payments of more than 95% of the total sale consideration on different dates between 2010 to 2016, the OP Developer failed to deliver the possession of the Floor within stipulated period, i.e., by the end of the year 2012, it offered possession only on 08.06.2016.  It was also stated in the Complaint that the OP Developer for saving their cost has changed the lay-out plan of the floor, due to which the size of the rooms became smaller.  It was further stated that the OP Developer raised illegal demand on account of change in area, other charges, club house membership charges, cost of electricity expenditure and VAT.  Alleging Deficiency in Service on the part of the OP Developer, the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint with following reliefs:-
   • i)     To direct the respondent to make the payment of interest of Rs.20,87,844/- calculated at the rate of 24% PA from February 2012 on Rs.10,89,936/- the amount received till February 2012 and form March 2012 on Rs.4,50,020/- and from September 2013 on Rs.3,73,000/- and from October 2013 on Rs.6,72,096/- and from May 2014 on Rs.3,21,927/- and from February 2016 on Rs.3,59,574/- for their dereliction of duty, deficiency for serviced by not handing over the possession of the unit booked from them in two years from the date of booking and Rs.6,12,00/- calculated at the rate of Rs.15,000/- PM from January 2013 onwards on account of the rent complainant paying for living in a rented accommodation for being their deficiency in handing over the possession of the unit on time, and

5. ”

4. The Opposite Party Developer contested the Complaint before the State Commission by submitting that due to force majeure the possession of the Floors in question could not be delivered to the Complainants in time as Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its Order dated 19.04.2012 stayed construction activities at the site. Time was not the essence of the contract. They vide letter dated 05.06.2013 explained the reasons for delay in handing over possession and gave an option to cancel the allotment and avail refund along with simple interest (@ 9% p.a.) but the complainants did not avail the said offer. They are willing to pay compensation @ Rs.10/- per sq. ft. per month as per Clause 15 of the Agreement to the Complainant if he is not found guilty of breach of any terms and conditions of the Agreement. The State Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint because the allegations levelled against the Developer require detailed interpretation of the clauses of the Agreement which cannot be done in summary proceedings.   

5. After hearing both the Parties and perusal of material on record, the State Commission dealt all the issues in detail and passed the following Order:-
   •  

5. ”

6. Aggrieved by the Orders passed by the State Commission, while the Opposite Party Developer, DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, has filed the First Appeals, i.e., FA/1741/2016, FA/1742/2016, FA/1743/2016, FA/1744/2016 FA/1745/2016, FA/1011/2017, FA/1013/2017, FA/956/2017, FA/1248/2017, FA/1462/2017, FA/1464/2017, FA/1465/2017, FA/1727/2017, FA/1728/2017 and FA/1272/2018 for setting aside the Orders passed by the State Commission, the Complainants have filed the Appeals, i.e., FA/1758/2016, FA/1759/2016, FA/1760/2016, FA/1761/2016, FA/1762/2016, FA/1249/2018 FA/2023/2018, FA/2025/2018, FA/2026/2018, FA/2027/2018 and FA/2028/2018 for enhancement of the Compensation awarded by the State Commission.

7. Mr. Pravin Bahadur, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the OP Developer submitted that the State Commission erred in granting compensation on account of delay as the delay was due to injunction Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and other reasons which were beyond the control of the OP Developer; the Parties are bound by the terms of the Agreement and they are ready of compensate the Complainants as per provisions in the Agreement; the State Commission also erred in granting further compensation of ₹1,50,000/- as the Project is escalation free and the Complainants will also get the benefit of escalation of price of the Property; some of the Complainants are re-allottee, therefore, they cannot be compared with the cases of original allottees.  It was prayed that the Orders passed by the State Commission be set aside.

8. Per Contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Complainants alongwith some of the Complainants, who appeared in person, submitted that the OP Developer changed the layout plan of the allotted Units unilaterally.  It was also submitted that the OP Developer has increased the area of the Units allotted and have illegally raised demand for this increased area and it was prayed that the illegally raised demand towards the increase area be quashed and the compensation awarded by the State Commission be enhanced.

9. I have heard the learned Counsel for the Parties and given a thoughtful consideration to the various pleas raised by them.  

10. All the pleas raised by the Parties have been dealt with in detail by this Commission in “DLF Homes Punchkula Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D.S. Handa, etc..” [FA No. 853 / 2016 and other connected matters decided on 12.12.2018].  This Order was challenged by the OP Developer by filing Civil Appeals before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The controversy regarding handing over delayed possession and claim of refund, along with interest, has been set at rest by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D.S. Dhanda, Etc. Etc. and DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sudesh Goyal, Etc., II (2019) CPJ 117 (SC).  The Hon’ble Supreme Court has given the following directions:
    •  

19. Thus, we find that the complainant is entitled to interest from the Appellant for not handing over possession as projected as is offered by it but it is not a case to award special punitive damages as the one of the causes for late delivery of possession was beyond the control of the Appellant. Therefore, in view of the settlement proposal submitted by the Appellant in earlier two set of appeals in respect of same project, and to settle any further controversy, the Appellant is directed as follows:

(i)        To send a copy of the occupation certificate to the Complainants along with offer of possession. The Appellant shall also direct the Jones Lang LaSalle — the real estate maintenance agency, engaged by the Appellant to undertake such maintenance works as is necessary on account of damage due to non-occupation of the flats after construction etc.

(ii)       It shall be open to the Complainants to seek the assistance of the maintenance agency to attend to the maintenance work which may arise on account of non-occupation or on account of natural vagaries.

(iii)      Such maintenance work shall be completed by the Appellant within two months of the offer of possession but the payment of interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum will be for a period of two months from the date of offer of possession in all situations.

(v)       Since the Complainants have been forced to invoke jurisdiction of the consumer forums, they shall be entitled to consolidated amount of Rs. 50,000/- in each complaint on all accounts such as mental agony and litigation expenses etc. The complainant shall not be entitled to any other amount over and above the amount mentioned above.

(vi)      In case, the original allottee has transferred the flat, the transferee shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of expiry of three years from the agreement or from the date of transfer, whichever is later.”

11. As far as the allegations of the Complainants that the Opposite Party Developer unilaterlly has changed the layout plan of the allotted Units and the OP Developer has illegally increased the area of the Units allotted and raised demand for this increased area is concerned, I do not find any ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the State Commission in its Orders dated 10.11.2016 in CC No. 374/2016 and 17.05.2017 in CC No. 33/2017 and other connected matters, which read as under:-
    1. As regards allegation raised by the complainant that the Opposite Parties unilaterally changed the layout plan of the allotted unit and also changed the room size, without any justification and thus, lowered the utility of the end user, it may be stated here that the complainant purchased the unit, in question, from its original allottee, namely Sh. Surender Singh Narwal, who never agitated this issue to the Opposite Parties uptil 06.05.2013, on which date the unit, in question, was transferred in favour of the complainant, whereas the fact is that the unit, was allotted to him on 15.03.2010 and Agreement between him (original allottee) and the Opposite Parties was executed on 14.01.2011. Thus, raising   such an objection, at this belated stage by the complainant, is an afterthought.

30. ”

12. As the controversy has been set at rest by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am not inclined to grant any further compensation as prayed by the Complainants in the Appeals, i.e., FA/1758/2016, FA/1759/2016, FA/1760/2016, FA/1761/2016, FA/1762/2016, FA/1249/2018 FA/2023/2018, FA/2025/2018, FA/2026/2018, FA/2027/2018 & FA/2028/2018 and the same are dismissed.  
13. Respectfully following the ratio of the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D.S. Dhanda, Etc. Etc. and DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sudesh Goyal, Etc., II (2019) CPJ 117 (SC), First Appeals filed by the OP Developer/ DLF Homes Punchkula Pvt. Ltd., i.e., FA/1741/2016, FA/1742/2016, FA/1743/2016, FA/1744/2016 FA/1745/2016, FA/1011/2017, FA/1013/2017, FA/956/2017, FA/1248/2017, FA/1462/2017, FA/1464/2017, FA/1465/2017, FA/1727/2017, FA/1728/2017 and FA/1272/2018 stand disposed of in terms referred to in Para 10 above.
14. The OP Developer / DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. is directed to make the payment to the Complainants within 10 weeks from today.  The Complainants shall also be entitled for a consolidated amount of ₹50,000/- on account of mental agony and litigation expenses.
15. In addition to above, the statutory deposit, made by the OP Developer herein at the time of filing of the Appeals, alongwith accrued interest, if any, be given to the respective Complainants.