IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Hearing: 18.01.2021 

Date of Decision: 05.02.2021

Complaint No. 840/2015

IN THE MATTER OF

VIPULA AWASTHY

w/o Sh. Atul Awasthy

R/o Flat no. 605, Swarn Jayanti

GHS, Plot No. 97, Sector-54,

AKSHAY AWASTHY

S/o Sh. Atul Awasthy

R/o Flat no. 605, Swarn Jayanti

GHS, Plot No. 97, Sector-54,

VERSUS

          DLF HOMES DEVELOPERS LIMITED

DLF Centre, Sansad Marg,

New Delhi-110001

M/S DLF NEW GURGAON HOMES

DEVELOPERS

1-E, Jhandewalan Extension,

New Delhi-110055                                            ...Opposite Parties

HON’BLE  SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER 

1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes     

 2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                        Yes

Present:       Sh. Y.P. Narula Senior, advocate with Sh. Ujas Counsel for the complainant

                   Sh. Aditya Narayan with Sh. Kalyan, Counsel for the OPs

          ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

JUDGEMENT

1.           This complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, the Act, has been filed by Smt. Vipula Awasthy and Sh. Akshay Awasthy, residents of Gurgaon, Haryana, for short complainants, against the DLF Homes Developers Limited, hereinafter referred to as OPs, alleging deficiency of service against the OPs they having failed to hand over the possession of the flat booked by them within the time as agreed to despite the payment as required having been made and unfair trade practice, they enforcing the maintenance charges and holding charges even before the allotment and handing over possession and, secondly, demanding more than the amount as agreed to and praying for the relief as under:-

Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid circumstances it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Commission be pleased to:-

1. Direct the Op-1 and 2 to complete the pending work in the said flat in all respects with all amenities and facilities and hand over the possession to the complainants in a habitable condition immediately.
2. Direct the OP-1 and 2 to pay Rs. 9,77,850/- as compensation to the complainants with regard to the delay in delivery possession to be calculated @ Rs. 10 per sq. ft. per month till August, 2015 and pay further compensation at the rate mentioned above till actual physical possession is handed over.
3. Direct the OP-1 and 2 to compensate for the amount of rent paid by the complainants in due course of time on account of delay in delivery of possession of the said flat and also on account of the tremendous mental pain and agony, undue harassment and the stress caused to the complainants and pay to the complainants a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- in lieu thereof pay further compensation till actual physical possession is handed over.
4. Direct the OP-1 and 2 to pay to the complainants cost of litigation.
5. Pass any such order or further orders as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

2.           Facts of the case necessary for the adjudication of the complaint are these.
3.           On the OPs having launched a residential project under the name and style of ‘New Town Heights’, Sector-91, Gurgaon in the year 2008 the complainants had applied for the allotment of a flat situated on the 2^nd floor of building no. F and for allotment of one parking space in the complex of the said project. On 31.12.2008 a Flat Buyers Agreement was done between the complainants and OP-1 and 2. Total sale consideration for the flat booked was of Rs. 49,52,000/- which was inclusive of Rs. 2,00,000/- for reserved parking space in the complex. An amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- had been paid as earnest money at the time of booking of the flat. Remaining amount was to be paid on construction linked basis, to be paid in 12 instalments from 29.03.2008 to 29.06.2011. The Super Area of the flat was of 163.57 sq. mtrs./1760 sq. ft. and an apartment area of 124.72 sq. mtrs/1396 sq. ft. (Approx.). The complainants had applied for a loan from the State Bank of India on 09.09.2008 which loan was duly sanctioned by the Bank on 18.09.2008 for an amount of Rs. 37,48,000/-. Accordingly the complainants paid the instalments to OP-1 and OP-2 regularly details of which are as under:-

1. Rs. 1,00,000/- on 02.06.2008
2. Rs. 3,00,000/- on 11.06.2008
3. Rs. 8,32,000/- on 29.09.2008
4. Rs. 3,71,400/- on 30.12.2008

4.           The version of the complainant is that as per the agreement dated 31.12.2008 OP-1 and OP-2 were to deliver the possession within 36 months of the date of booking the flat, which period expired on 31.12.2011 but, till date of possession has not been delivered to them. The OP-1 and OP-2 had also agreed by way their letter dated 26.03.2009 to:-

1. 5% discount on the basic sale price
2. 10% timely payment rebate
3. The area of the said flat was to be increased by 5% free of cost.
4. Delivery of possession of the said flat within three years from the date of booking.

The complainants had offered to pay the remaining balance of the entire sale consideration as down payment in response to which the OP-1 demanded a sum of Rs. 18,66,791.79/-. Against the said demand, the complainants paid two more instalments, details of which are given below:-

1. Rs. 1,48,411/- on 25.02.2010.
2. Rs. 3,17,000/- on 12.03.2010.

OP-1 demanded a total sum of Rs. 13,08,376/- for down payment of the remaining balance, which amount having been deposited the entire sale consideration is deemed to have been paid and that there remained nothing more payable by the complainants.

5.           The possession as agreed was to be handed over within three years of the booking of the flat. But the OPs, failed to do so within the time. However on 17.07.2013, the possession was offered to the complainants raising, allegedly, an illegal demand of Rs. 15,64,373.19/- before delivery of possession. The said demand according to the complainant was totally illegal and the amount was not payable for two reasons, namely, no amount was then payable and secondly the construction was not complete. Infact the possession was offered only to extract money. However on the complainant taking up the matter, demand made for payment was withdrawn.
6.           The possession of the flat not having been handed over within the agreed period, the complainants relying on clause 17, of the agreement has alleged that OPs  are liable to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 10 per sq. ft. month and the total amount till date in that case is as under:-

1845 x 10 x 53 = Rs. 9,77,850/-

Since the complainants are disputing the final area of the said flat, the complainant shall be at liberty to claim compensation as per the actual area of the said, once the same is determined.

The future compensation @ Rs. 10 per sq. ft. is also recoverable by the complainants. The complainants are reproducing the relevant clause for this Hon’ble Commission perusal:

“17. Failure to deliver possession: remedy to DHDL

The allottee agrees that if the construction and development of the said complex is abandoned or DHDL is unable to gave possession within thirty six months from the date of execution of this agreement or such extended periods as permitted under this agreement, DHDL shall be entitled to terminate this agreement whereupon DHDL’s liability shall be limited to the refund of the amounts paid by the allottee with simple interest @ 6% per annum for the period such amounts were lying with DHDL and DHDL shall not be liable to pay other compensation whatsoever.

However, DHDL may, at its sole option and discretion not to terminate this agreement in which event DHDL agrees to only to the allottee and not to anyone else and only in cases other than those provided in clauses 14, 15, 16 and 50 and subject to the allottee not being in fault under any term of this agreement, compensation @ Rs. 5/- per sq. ft. of the super area of the said apartment per month for the period of such delay beyond thirty six months or such extended periods as permitted under this agreement. The adjustment of such compensation shall be done only at the time of conveyance the said apartment to the allottee first name in this agreement and not earlier.

7.           In these circumstances the complainants, the compensation for the delayed period being very low and the terms of agreement being one sided suiting the interests of the builders, have approached this Commission for the redressal of their grievances. OPs were noticed and in response thereto they have filed their reply resisting the complaint both on technical ground as also on merit stating that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act and thus not entitled to raise a consumer dispute within the meaning of Section 2(1)(e) of the Act. Secondly the complaint having been filed two years after the cause of action arose is barred by limitation. Thirdly, the complainants have suppressed several material facts and thus they have not approached the Commission with clean hands. Fourth, the complainants were defaulter in making the payment. Fifth, the OPs having acted well in accordance with the terms and conditions as contained in the agreement executed between them on 31.12.2008 have not been deficient in rendering service to the complainant. Further, the OPs offered possession to the complainant on a number of occasions subject to payment of balance dues and completion of paperwork who did not make any endeavour to comply with the same and continued to withhold the final payment and also did not take over possession of the flat. Sixth, the relief claimed in this complaint are in the nature of specific performance which relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Ghaziabad Development Authority versus Ved Prakash Aggarwal as reported in (2008) 7 SCC 686 are according to the OPs, beyond the jurisdiction of this Commission. Seventh, the matter, keeping in view the agreement in required to be referred to arbitration. On merits the OPs have denied the averments made.
8.           The complainants have filed their rejoinder rebutting the contentions raised in the written statements and reiterating the averments contained in the complaint. Both the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavit in support of their pleadings. Written arguments by both the parties have also been filed.
9.           This Commission as on interim measure had passed an order on 20.03.2017, directing the OPs to hand over the possession.
10. However the Hon’ble NCDRC while hearing the appeal set aside the interim order and was pleased to remand the matter to this Commission to decide the case finally on merit after recording the evidence. This order of the NCDRC was also affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
11.  This matter was accordingly listed before this Commission for final hearing on 18.01.2021 when the counsel for both sides appeared and advanced their arguments based on the respective pleadings, the complainant for the relief claimed and the OPs for the dismissal of the complaint, no deficiency of service according to them, having been established. I have heard the arguments and perused the records of the case.
12. Short question for adjudication in this complaint is whether the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed. The relief claimed inter alia is for a direction to the OPs to complete the pending work and the to pay compensation for the delay done in the delivery of the possession of the flat to be calculated @ Rs. 10 per sq. ft. per month till August, 2015 and pay further compensation till the actual physical possession is handed over. 
13. I may in the first instance advert to the defence of the OPs. The first objection of the OPs is that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. The said provision of the Act posits as under:-

Section 2(1)(d) of the Act

“Consumer means any person who.-

1. Buy any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised of partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
2.  [hires or avails of] any services of a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person [but does not include person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose];

{Explanation- For the purpose of this clause,” commercial purpose” does not include use by person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment.

From the above it is apparent that to be a consumer one hires the services for self use and for a consideration as agreed to. In the given case the ingredients to be a consumer are existing.

14. The ground taken by the OPs regarding limitation cannot sustain since the limitation starts from the date cause of action arose and in the given case possession not having been handed over, the cause of action is continuous and thus the cause of action exists even today. This leads to a conclusion that the edifice built by the OPs taking the ground of limitation for defending the complaint falls to the ground.
15. The next objection of the OP that the issues involved in the given case since relates to specific performance, requiring recording of evidence, examination and counter examination of the facts, cannot be adjudicated by this Commission in summary procedure, is not acceptable relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Rishab Kumar Sogani versus State Bank of India as reported in I [2020] CPJ 496(NC) holding in para 9 as under:-

At the outset, we first address ourselves to the issue whether both the fora below were right in relegating the matter to a Civil Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. J.J. Merchant & Ors. Vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi (2002) 6 SCC 635, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court inter-alia observed as under:-

Further, under the Act the National Commission is required to be headed by a retired Judge of this Court and the State Commission is required to be headed by a retired High Court Judge.  They are competent to decide complicated issues of law or facts.  Hence, it would not be proper to hold that in cases where negligence of experts is alleged, consumers should be directed to approach the Civil Court.

It was next contended that such complicated questions of facts cannot be decided in summary proceedings.  In our view, this submission also requires to be rejected because under the Act, for summary or speedy trial, exhaustive procedure in conformity with the principles of natural justice is provided.  Therefore, merely because it is mentioned that Commission or Forum is required to have summary trial would hardly be a ground for directing the consumer to approach the Civil Court.  For trial to be just and reasonable long drawn delayed procedure, giving ample opportunity to the litigant to harass the aggrieved other side, is not necessary.  It should be kept in mind that legislature has provided alternative, efficacious, simple, inexpensive and speedy remedy to the consumers and that should not be curtailed on such ground.  It would also be totally wrong assumption that because summary trial is provided, justice cannot be done when some questions of facts are required to be dealt with or decided.  The Act provides sufficient safeguards."

16.  The next objection of the OP that the matter was required to be referred to the arbitration keeping in view the agreement, is overruled relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Aftab Singh & ors versus Emaar MGF Land Limited & anr. as reported in III [2017] CPJ 270 (NC) holding in para 53 as under:-

“Consequently,………, we hold that an Arbitration Clause in the agreement between the complainant and the builder cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum, notwithstanding the amendments made to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act.”

17. In these circumstances the objections of the OPs since not maintainable are sequentially rejected. I may now advert to the merit of the case.  
18. The fact that the complaint had booked a flat is indisputed. The possession of the flat was to be delivered in 36 months, the fact borne out of record. It is indisputed that the physical possession of the flat was not handed over within the period as agreed to. Payment as per agreed schedule was made something clearly borne out from the evidence filed by way of affidavit. Infact the possession offered was also after the expiry of the agreed period. Finally when offered, it was only on the condition of paying the maintenance charges and holding charges which charges according to the complainant cannot be enforced. Besides the possession was offered allegedly even before the receipt of the occupancy certificate which in the eyes of law is no valid offer.
19. Having regard to these facts the OPs have certainly been deficient and in these circumstances the complaint deserves to be accepted. Ordered accordingly.
20. Having arrived at the said conclusion, the point for consideration is as to how the Complainants are to be compensated for the monetary loss, mental and physical harassment he has suffered at the hands of OPs on account of non-delivery of the allotted flat within the agreed period.
21. The provisions of the Act enable a consumer to claim and empower the Commission/Forum to redress any injustice done to a consumer. The Commission or the Forum is entitled to award not only value of goods or services but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him. The word compensation is of very wide connotation.  It may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend the compensation for physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. Therefore, for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation, the Commission/Forum must determine the extent of sufferance by the consumer due to action or inaction on the part of the Opposite Party. In Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh - (2004) 5 SCC 65, while observing that the power and duty to award compensation does not mean that irrespective of facts of the case, compensation can be awarded in all matters on a uniform basis, the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave certain instances and indicated the factors, which could be kept in view while determining adequate compensation.  One of the illustrations given in the said decision was between the cases, where possession of a booked/allotted property was directed to be delivered and the cases where only monies paid as sale consideration, are directed to be refunded. The Hon'ble Court observed, in this behalf, that in cases where possession is directed to be delivered to the Complainant, the compensation for harassment will necessarily have to be less because in a way that party is being compensated by increase in the value of the property he is getting.  But in cases where monies are being simply refunded, then the party is suffering a loss inasmuch as he had deposited the money in the hope of getting a flat/plot. He is not only deprived of the flat/plot, he has been deprived of the benefit of escalation of the price of the flat/plot. Additionally, in my view, in such a situation, he also suffers substantial monetary loss on account of payment of interest on the loans raised; depreciation in the money value and escalation in the cost of construction etc.
22. From the above it is apparent that this Commission can pass orders regarding the refund of the amount deposited to the company by the complainants, notwithstanding the proceedings pending in any other forum.
23. The Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Anil Shantilal Gandhi versus Sahara Prime City Ltd. as reported in IV [2019] CPJ 24 (NC) in pleased to direct refund of the amount deposited with interest @ 10%, the OP having failed to offer the possession of the allotted unit to complainant even after more than eight years time.
24. The Hon’ble NCDRC in yet another matter, in the matter of Universal Infrastructure and Anr versus Binay Pal Singh and Anr. as reported in IV [2019] CPJ 437 (NC), relying on a judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. versus Devasis Rudra, Civil Appeal 3182/2019, decided on 25.03.2019, noting that more than seven years have a already expired held that the complainant cannot be expected to wait indefinitely for possession of the allotted flat and thus entitled for compensation.
25. The Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of STUC Awasiya Grahak Kalyaan Association and ors versus Supertech as reported in III [2019] CPJ 226 (NC) is pleased to hold that allottee cannot be compelled to accept possession at the belated stage and thus refund of the deposited amount alongwith compensation in the form of Simple Interest at the rate of 10% was ordered. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has taken the same view in the matter of Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. versus Govindan Raghavan as reported in II [2019] CPJ 34 (SC).
26.  Besides, their Lordships in Apex Court in the matter of Fortune Infrastructure and Anr versus Trevor D’lima and ors as reported in II[2018] CPJ 1 (SC) are pleased to hold as under:

Person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of flats allotted to them. They are entitled to seek refund of amount paid by them, alongwith compensation.

27. The Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Parasvnath Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. and Anr versus Varun Dev, as reported in II[2018] CPJ 212 (NC) is pleased to direct as under:

“Flat booked was never constructed. Allottee cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession. They are entitled for refund. Refund allowed with 12% interest.”

28. The Hon’ble NCDRC has taken similar view in the following matters also, namely,

1. Emaar MGF Land Ltd. and Anr versus Amit Puri-II[2015] CPJ 568 (NC).
2. Parasvnath Exotica Residents Association versus Parasvnath Developers Ltd. and ors-IV[2016] CPJ 328 (NC).

29. The Ld. Counsel for the OPs while arguing that the complainant is not entitled for the compensation as prayed for, submitted that as per agreement in the event of delay in handing over possession the complainant is entitled to the compensation only to the extent of Rs. 5/- per sq. ft. and not more. 
30. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, is pleased to pass an order on 02.04.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 12238 of 2018 and in Civil Appeal No. 1677 of 2019 in the matters of Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited versus Govindan Raghawan and Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited versus Geetu Gidwani Verma & anr. upholding the orders passed by the Hon’ble NCDRC and holding as under:-

We see no illegality in the Impugned Order dated 23.10.2018 passed by the National Commission. The Appellant – Builder failed to fulfil his contractual obligation of obtaining the Occupancy Certificate and offering possession of the flat to the Respondent – Purchaser within the time stipulated in the Agreement, or within a reasonable time thereafter. The Respondent – Flat Purchaser could not be compelled to take possession of the flat, even though it was offered almost 2 years after the grace period under the Agreement expired. During this period, the Respondent – Flat Purchaser had to service a loan that he had obtained for purchasing the flat, by paying Interest @10% to the Bank. In the meanwhile, the Respondent – Flat Purchaser also located an alternate property in Gurugram. In these circumstances, the Respondent – Flat Purchaser was entitled to be granted the relief prayed for i.e. refund of the entire amount deposited by him with Interest.

The Civil Appeals are accordingly dismissed, and the Final Judgment and Order dated 23.10.2018 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is affirmed. The appellant is granted a period of three months from today to refund the amount to the respondent. All pending Applications, if any, are accordingly disposed of.

31. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Wg. Cdr. Arifew Rahman Khan and Aleya Sultana and ors versus DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. (now known as BEGUR OMR Homes Pvt. Ltd.) and ors is pleased to hold as under:-

For the above reasons we have come to the conclusion that the dismissal of the complaint by the NCDRC was erroneous. The flat buyers are entitled to compensation for delayed handing over of possession and for the failure of the developer to fulfil the representations made to flat buyers in regard to the provision of amenities. The reasoning of the NCDRC on these facts suffers from a clear perversity and patent errors of law which have been noticed in the earlier part of this judgment. Allowing the appeals in part, we set aside the impugned judgments and order of the NCDRC dated 2 July 2019 dismissing the consumer complaint. While doing so, we issue the following directions:

1. Save and except for eleven appellants who entered into specific settlements with the developer and three appellants who have sold their right, title and interest under the ABA, the first and second respondents shall, as a measure of compensation, pay an amount calculated at the rate of 6% simple interest per annum to each of the appellants. The amount shall be computed on the total amounts paid towards the purchase of the respective flats with effect from the date of expiry of thirty-six months from the execution of the respective ABAs until the date of the offer of possession after the receipt of the occupation certificate;
2. The above amount shall be in addition to the amounts which have been paid over or credited by the developer at the rate of Rs. 5 per square foot per month at the time of the drawing of final accounts; and
3. The amounts due and payable in terms of directions (i) and (ii) above shall be paid over within a period of one month from the date of this judgment failing which they shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum until payment.

32. Further as per the Haryana Ownership Act, 1983 and the Haryana Apartment Ownership Rules, 1987, the complainants are obliged to pay “Common expenses” including expenses of administration, maintenance, repair or replacement of the common areas and facilities, as lawfully assessed by the association of apartment owners and not as per the demands raised by the developer. Besides the demand to this effect before handing over possession is not in order. The allegation of the complainants is that the clause contained in the agreement, indicating that the amount is payable, being contrary to the legal position, tantamount to unfair trade practice. The ld. Counsel for the OPs on the other hand argued that the amount sought for under this head has to be as per the agreement with which both of them are bound. However relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Kamal Kishore versus Supertech as reported in II [2017] CPJ 483 (NC) holding as under:-

“Maintenance charges would be payable only after the date when occupancy certificate is obtained. Therefore the maintenance charges, in my opinion, would be payable from the date on which the possession is offered to the complainant after obtaining the occupancy certificate provided the construction of the villa is complete in all respect at that time”,

the contention of the complainant that the maintenance charges are not payable before the possession is handed over, appears to be correct and the demand of the OP in this behalf is not in order.

33. This leaves deliberations on the subject of interest for the delayed period and compensation. The law on the subject is very clear. OPs are under an obligation to pay to the complainant interest and compensation in the event of delay in handing over possession. The Hon’ble NCDRC relying on their earlier decisions in the matter of Swarn Talwar and ors vs. M/s Unitech was pleased to issue following directions in the similar circumstances in the matter of Parvinder Singh and ors versus M/s Unitech (CC-449/2013) decided on 12.02.2016 [MANU/CP/0028/2016]:-

1. The OP shall take necessary steps and deliver possession of the plot booked by the complainant to them within a period of six months from today.
2. The OP shall pay to the complainants compensation in the form of simple interest @12% p.a. for the period starting after 18 months from the date of agreement, i.e., from 13.11.2012, till the possession is delivered to the complainant. The compensation in the form of interest till 29.02.2016 shall be paid to the complainant by 31.03.2016. Thereafter, compensation in the form of interest in terms of this order shall be paid on monthly basis by 10^th day of each succeeding month.
3. If the OP fails to deliver the possession of the plot to the complainant within 6 months from today, they shall pay compensation in the form of interest @18% p.a., for each day’s delay beyond six months from today in delivery of the possession of the plot, to the complainant.
4. The OP shall also pay 10,000/- as cost of litigation.

34. The Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Satish Kumar Pandey and Anr vs. Unitech as reported in 2015 Law Suit (Co) 998 is pleased to order in the similar circumstances as under:-

1. The opposite party shall deliver possession of the respective flats of the complainants to them on or before the last date stipulated in its letter dated 27.05.2015;
2. The opposite party shall pay to (i) the original allottees and (ii) to those who acquired the allotment by way of repurchase, within one year of the date of the initial Agreement of their respective flats, compensation in the form of simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from 36 months from the date of the initial Agreement till the date possession is delivered to them.  The interest payable till 31.08.2015 shall be paid by 10.09.2015, in three equal installments, by the 10^th of each month i.e. by 10^th July, 2015, 10^th August, 2015 and 10^th September, 2015.  Thereafter, compensation in the form of interest, in terms of this order, shall be paid on monthly basis by the 10^th of each succeeding month.
3.  Such of the complainants, who acquired allotment of the flat by way of repurchase more than one year after the date of the initial allotment of their respective flats, shall be paid compensation by way of simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum, with effect from 36 months from the date of repurchase by them, till possession is delivered to them.  They will also be paid compensation at the rate of Rs.5/- per square foot of the super area of their respective flat for the period between 36 months from the date of the initial Buyers Agreement of their respective flats and 36 months from the date of repurchase of the flat by them.
4. The increase in service tax with effect from 01.06.2015 shall be borne by the opposite party, in all these cases.
5. If the opposite party fails to deliver possession by the last date stipulated in its letter dated 27.05.2015, it shall pay compensation to all the complainants in the form of simple interest at the rate of 18% per annum, for each day there is delay, beyond the date stipulated in the said letter dated 27.05.2015, in delivering possession to the complainants.
6. The opposite party shall pay Rs.5,000/- as the cost of litigation in each complaint.

35. Having regard to the legal position explained and keeping in view the facts and circumstanced of the case I am of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met if the complaint is disposed with two folded directions to the OP, namely, the OPs shall have the unfinished work in the flat finished and hand over the possession. Besides they would pay to the complainants compensation for the delayed period simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum with effect from the date the complainant was to be delivered the possession of the apartment/flat till date. Additionally OPs are liable to pay Rs. 30,000/- as litigation charges. This be paid to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
36. Ordered accordingly leaving the parties to bear the cost.
37. A copy of this order be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as is statutorily required. File be consigned to records.

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)

MEMBER

PRONOUNCED ON

05.02.2021

sl