BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 12^th DAY OF JULY 2021

O R D E R

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

All these complaints have been filed by different complainants U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against one and same Opposite Parties (herein after referred as OPs) with a prayer to direct the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.10,72,000/- in CC No.1716/2019, Rs.11,84,000/- in CC No.1717/2019, Rs.14,25,000/- in CC No.1718/2019, Rs.5,12,500/- in CC 1719/2019, Rs.5,12,500/- in CC 1720/2019, Rs.14,30,000/- in CC 1721/2019, Rs.7,00,000/- in CC No.1722/2019, Rs.10,00,000/- in CC 1723/2019,  Rs.18,50,000/- in CC 1724/2019, Rs.5,50,000/- in CC 1725/2019, Rs.8,26,410/- in CC 1726/2019, Rs.5,50,000/- in CC 1727/2019, Rs.6,00,000/- in CC 1728/2019, Rs.7,54,000/- in CC 1729/2019, Rs.11,50,000/- in CC 1730/2019, Rs.10,50,000/- in CC 1731/2019, Rs.1,00,000/- in CC 1732/2019, Rs.5,89,200/- in CC 1733/2019, Rs.1,00,000/- in CC 1734/2019 and Rs.4,00,000/- in CC 1735/2019 along with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of making payments till realization, to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service in each case and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards shock-mental and physical suffering and loss of time in each case and to grant such other reliefs.  Hence, we feel just and proper to pass a common order in CC 1716/2019 by clubbing other case Nos.1717 to 1735/2019 in it. 

2. With regard to the maintainability of these cases to try and dispose by this Commission is concerned, this Commission by its order dated 01.02.2021 categorically stated that the booking of the flats for these cases are other than the Dreams Sumadhur for which NCLT, Bengaluru dated 20.08.2019 in C.P.(1B)84/BB/2019 has been issued moratorium order.  Under such circumstances, there is no legal impediment to dispose of these matters.    

3. The above said complaints are similar in nature, except the quantum of amount/date of payment/date of notice. The brief averments made in the complaints are as under:

That the OP is the company incorporated under the register of companies and that Disha Choudhary being the Managing Director of companies by name Dreams Infra India Pvt. Ltd., and Sachin Nayak being the founder Chairman of companies, OPs company gave advertisements in daily newspapers and television channels with attractive benefits to the members of the general public to approach the OPs for allotment of sites in various parts of Bengaluru city such as Kanakapura Road, Mysuru Road, Electronic City, Hebbal, HAL Bellandoor etc., by putting up huge sign boards with RCB cricket players advertising the name of company on the T-shirts with company logo.

In CC 1716/2019 the complainant submits that the OP with their staff represented the complainant stating that they have purchased the land property Sy.No.130/3 totally measuring 33 guntas situated at Hormavau Village, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District and that they are constructing an apartment on the said land.  The complainant booked 3 BHK flat measuring 1375 sq.ft. proposed project known as “Dreams Saakar” and OP offered to sell the complainant on a total sale consideration of Rs.32,00,000/- for which the complainant paid a sum of Rs.10,72,000/- on different dates and entered into MOU with OP dated 15.11.2015.

In CC 1717/2019 the complainants submit that the OP with their staff represented the complainant stating that they have purchased land bearing Sy.No.130/3 totally measuring 33 guntas situated at Hormavau Village, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District and that they are constructing an apartment on the said land.  The complainant booked 3 BHK flat measuring 1375 sq.ft. proposed project known as “Dreams Saakar” and OP offered to sell the complainant on a total sale consideration of Rs.32,00,000/- for which the complainant paid a sum of Rs.11,84,000/- on different dates. 

In CC 1718/2019 the complainant submits that the OP with their staff represented the complainant stating that they have purchased land at Gottigere Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk and they are constructing an apartment on the said land. The complainant booked 2 BHK flat measuring 950 sq.ft. proposed project known as “Dreams Sai Sagar” and OP offered to sell the complainant on a total sale consideration of Rs.28,00,000/- for which the complainant paid a sum of Rs.14,25,000/- on different dates and entered in to MOU.

 In CC 1719/2019 the complainant submits that the OP with their staff represented the complainant stating that they have purchased land situated at Roopena Agrahara Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk property bearing Sy.No.136 totally measuring East to West 100 ft. and North to South 50 ft. and that they are constructing an apartment on the said land. The complainant booked 2 BHK flat measuring 800 sq.ft. proposed project known as “Dreams Sanskriti” and OP offered to sell the complainant on a total sale consideration of Rs.16,50,000/- for which the complainant paid a sum of Rs.5,12,000/- on different dates and entered into a MOU with OP.

In CC 1720/2019 the complainant submits that the OP with their staff represented the complainant stating that they have purchased land situated at Roopena Agrahara Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk property bearing Sy.No.136 totally measuring East to West 100 ft. and North to South 50 ft. and that they are constructing an apartment on the said land. The complainant booked 2 BHK flat measuring 800 sq.ft. proposed project known as “Dreams Sanskriti” and OP offered to sell the complainant on a total sale consideration of Rs.16,50,000/- for which the complainant paid a sum of Rs.5,12,000/- on different dates and entered into a MOU with OP.

In CC 1721/2019 the complainant submit that the OP with their staff represented the complainant stating that they have purchased property house list No.169, property No.1/8, Khatha No.136, New Khatha No.136/1/8 situated at Roopena Agrahara Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk totally measuring 5000 sq.ft. and that they are constructing an apartment on the said land. The complainant booked 2 BHK flat measuring 800 sq.ft. proposed project known as “Dreams Sanskriti” and OP offered to sell the complainant on a total sale consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- for which the complainants paid a sum of Rs.14,30,000/- on different dates and entered into a MOU with OP dated 17.04.2016.

In CC 1722/2019 the complainant submits that the OP with their staff represented the complainant stating that they have purchased the land situated at Munekolalu Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, property bearing Sy.No.69/1A, totally measuring 35 guntas and that they are constructing an apartment on the said land.  The complainant booked 2 BHK flat measuring 1050 sq.ft. proposed project known as “Dreams Sanskar” and OP offered to sell the complainant on a total sale consideration of Rs.18,50,000/- for which the complainant paid a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- on different dates and entered in MOU with OP dated 27.08.2015.

In CC 1723/2019 the complainant submits that the OP with their staff represented the complainant stating that they have purchased land situated at Kacharakanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru District totally measuring 9100 sq.ft. that they are constructing an apartment on the said land.  The complainant booked 2 BHK flat measuring 1000 sq.ft. proposed project known as “Dreams Shikhar” and OP offered to sell the complainant on a total sale consideration of Rs.20,00,000/- for which the complainant paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- on different dates and entered into a MOU with OP.

In CC 1724/2019 the complainant submits that the OP with their staff represented the complainant stating that they have purchased land situated at Industrial Layout, Koramangala, 66-A, Division of Bengaluru City Corporation, Bengaluru property bearing Sy.No.17 totally measuring East to West 42.6+37/2 and North to South 42.6+39.6/2 measuring in all an extent of 1535.78 sq.ft and that they are constructing an apartment on the said land. The complainant booked 2 BHK flat measuring 1200 sq.ft. proposed project known as “Dreams Samrudhi” and OP offered to sell the complainant on a total sale consideration of Rs.33,00,000/- for which the complainant paid a sum of Rs.18,50,000/- on different dates and entered into a MOU with OP on 16.06.2014.

In CC 1725/2019 the complainant submits that the OP with their staff represented the complainant stating that they have purchased the land at Thanisandra Main Road, Bengaluru and that they are constructing an apartment on the said land. The complainant booked 3 BHK flat measuring 1400 sq.ft. proposed project known as “Dreams Shaswat” and OP offered to sell the complainant on a total sale consideration of Rs.29,50,000/- for which the complainant paid a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- on different dates and entered into a MOU with OP.

In CC 1726/2019 the complainant submits that the OP with their staff represented the complainant stating that they have purchased the land bearing Sy.No.3 totally measuring 1 acre situated at Chambenahalli Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District property totally measuring East to West 100 ft, North to South 50 ft and that they are forming layout on the said land.  The complainant booked 2 BHK flat measuring 950 sq.ft. proposed project known as “Dreams Swadesh and then Transferred to Dreams Swagath” and OP offered to sell the complainant on a total sale consideration of Rs.12,00,000/- for which the complainant paid a sum of Rs.8,26,410/- on different dates and entered into a MOU with OP on 23.03.2016.

In CC 1727/2019 the complainants submit that the OP with their staff represented the complainants stating that they have purchased the land situated at Roopena Agrahara Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk property bearing Sy.No.8/1 totally measuring 3.68 guntas that they constructing an apartment on the said land.  The complainants booked 2 BHK flat measuring 800 sq.ft. proposed project known as “Dreams Sanskriti” and OP offered to sell the complainants on a total sale consideration of Rs.18,00,000/- for which the complainant paid a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- on different dates and entered in MOU with OP dated 23.02.2013.

In CC 1728/2019 the complainant submits that the OP with their staff represented the complainant stating that they have purchased the land bearing No.133/3 totally measuring 16000 sq.ft. situated at Doddabanhalli Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk and that they are constructing an apartment on the said land.  The complainant booked 3 BHK flat measuring 1450 sq.ft. proposed project known as “Dreams Swadhya” and OP offered to sell the complainants on a total sale consideration of Rs.28,00,000/- for which the complainants paid a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- on different dates and entered into mOU with Op on 25.10.2012.

In CC 1729/2019 the complainant submits that the OP with their staff represented the complainant stating that they have purchased the land bearing Sy.No.121/3 (old No.121/1), Boganahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk you had assured our client that 2 BHK flat measuring 1055 sq.ft. in the proposed project known as “Dreams Sneh”.  The OP offered to sell the complainant on a total sale consideration of Rs.26,50,000/- for which the complainant paid a sum of Rs.7,54,000/- on different dates vide booking form No.D-17271 and entered into MOU with OP on 02.05.2015.

In CC 1730/2019 the complainant submits that the OP with their staff represented the complainant stating that they have purchased the property bearing house list No.173, property No.2, Katha No.136, situated at Roopena Agrahara Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, totally measuring East to West 100 ft, North to South 50 ft. and that they are forming layout on the said land.  The complainant booked 2 BHK flat measuring 1050 sq.ft. proposed project known as “Dreams Sarovar” and OP offered to sell the complainant on a total sale consideration of Rs.23,00,000/- for which the complainant paid a sum of Rs.11,50,000/- on different dates and entered in to MOU with OP in the month of August, 2012.

In CC 1731/2019 the complainant submits that the OP with their staff represented the complainant stating that they have purchased the land bearing Sy.No.8/8 totally measuring 14 guntas situated at Thindlu Village, Yellahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District and that they are constructing an apartment on the said land.  The complainant booked 2 BHK flat measuring 950 sq.ft. proposed project known as “Dreams Suprabhata” and OP offered to sell the complainant on a total sale consideration of Rs.21,00,000/- for which the complainant paid a sum of Rs.10,50,000/- on different dates and entered into MOU with OP on 21.10.2015.

In CC 1732/2019 the complainant submits that the OP with their staff represented the complainant stating that they have purchased the land situated at Hosa Road Bengaluru that they are constructing an apartment on the said land.  The complainant booked 2 BHK flat measuring 950 sq.ft. proposed project known as “Dreams Simanth” and OP offered to sell the complainant on a total sale consideration of Rs.12,90,000/- for which the complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on different dates and entered into MOU with OP.

In CC 1733/2019 the complainant submits that the OP with their staff represented the complainant stating that they have purchased the land situated at Veerasandra Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District property bearing Sy.No.79/4 totally measuring 12.24 guntas and that they are constructing an apartment on the said land.  The complainant booked 2 BHK flat measuring 850 sq.ft. proposed project known as “Dreams Susthapit” and OP offered to sell the complainant on a total sale consideration of Rs.16,00,000/- for which the complainant paid a sum of Rs.5,86,200/- on different dates but in prayer coloumn complainant has sought for refund of Rs.5,89,200/- and entered in MOU with OP on 06.01.2014.

In CC 1734/2019 the complainant submits that the OP with their staff represented the complainant stating that they have purchased the land situated at HSR Layout, Bengaluru totally measuring 1 acre 32 guntas that they are constructing an apartment on the said land. The complainant booked 2 BHK flat measuring 950 sq.ft. proposed project known as “Dreams Shloka” and OP offered to sell the complainant on a total sale consideration of Rs.16,00,000/- for which the complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on different dates and entered in MOU with OP.

In CC 1735/2019 the complainant submits that the OP with their staff represented the complainant stating that they have purchased the land in Veereasandra Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District and that they are constructing an apartment on the said land.  The complainant booked 2 BHK flat measuring 850 sq.ft. proposed project known as “Dreams Susthapit” and OP offered to sell the complainant on a total sale consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- for which the complainant paid a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- on different dates and entered in MOU with OP.

It is submitted by the complainants that they are fond hope with OP and their staff will start the project and complete the same with in a stipulated period and when the OPs did not start the project, the complainants started enquiring about the delay in starting the project and the OP and their staff were postponing the same by giving one reason or the other did not start the project till date.  Further they submits that on request and instructions of the OPs, the complainants filled the cancellation form and returned all the original documents to the OPs.  The complainants submits that they again and again approached the OP and all efforts went in vain, finally OPs are not available in the office at Koramanagala and other Branches all over Bengaluru and have not refunded the advance amount to the complainants which is clear indication that the OPs have played a calculated fraud on the complainant by creating the documents, forged the documents, committed criminal breach of trust and finally cheated the complainants.  Hence, it is clear from the inception OPs had no intention to develop the project and the OPs are involved in unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

Further complainants submits that when they approached the jurisdictional Madivala Police Station, the said Madivala Police has registered a case for the offences punishable under Section 420 IPC in different crime numbers against the OP and their staff, now the investigation is taken up by the CID police, Karnataka State. 

Further complainants submits that they got issued a legal notice calling upon the OPs to refund the amount within seven days, is returned with an endorsement the addresses left.  In spite of the legal notice, the OPs have not returned the amount due to the complainants.  Hence, these complaints are filed.

The cause of action for the above complaints arises on the date when the booking of the flats were done by making initial payments and subsequent payments made by the complainants towards sale consideration, after issuance of legal notice when the OPs failed to repay the amount till today which is continued cause of action and complaint is well within the limitation period. 

4. After admitting the complaints, the learned counsel for the complainants filed memo for clubbing these cases and filed I.A.1/2019 under Order V Rule 20(1A) of CPC for issuance of common notice in daily news paper.  The said memo is allowed and allowed the said I.A.1/2019, therefore common notices were ordered to OPs published in daily news paper called Hosa Digantha.  The Common notice is published in Hosadigantha but, OPs did not appeared, hence placed exparte.

         5. The complainants to substantiate their case filed affidavit evidence and got marked the documents Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.9 in CC 1716/2019, Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 in CC 1717/2019, Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6 in CC 1718/2019, Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5 in CC 1719/2019, Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6 in CC 1720/2019, Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 in CC 1721/2019, Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 in CC 1722/2019, Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7 in CC 1723/2019, Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 in CC 1724/2019, Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6 in CC 1725/2019, Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.10 in CC 1726/2019,  Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5 in CC 1727/2019, Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 in CC 1728/2019 , Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7 in CC 1729/2019,  Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 in CC 1730/2019, Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 in CC 1731/2019, Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 in CC 1732/2019, Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.8 in CC 1733/2019, Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 in CC 1734/2019 and  Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 in CC 1735/2019.       

       6. Heard the learned counsel for the complainants.

        7. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether is there any deficiency of service on the part of OPs, if so, whether the Complainants entitled for the relief sought for? 
2. What order?

        8.  Our answers to the above points are as under:

Point No.1:  Party in the Affirmative 

Point No.2:  As per the final order for the following

REASONS

9. Point No.1:  We have briefly stated the contents of all the complaints.  In these cases, we noticed that in spite of service of notices to the OPs, OPs did not appear to contest the claim of the Complainants by way of filing the version, hence placed exparte. Under such circumstances, non-appearance and non-filing of version can be drawn an adverse inference that, the OPs have admitted the claim of the Complainants in the light of the decision reported in 2018 (1) CPR 314 (NC) in the case of M/s.Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd., vs. Aman Kumar Garg, wherein it is held that,

“Non-filing of written version to complaint before the forum, amounts to admission of the allegations levelled against them in consumer complaint”.

10. Any how, we place reliance on the available material on record for just disposal of these cases.  In CC No.1716/2019 it is evident that the complainant has booked 3 BHK flat measuring 1375 sq.ft. for a total sale consideration of Rs.32,00,000/- for which complainant has paid Rs.10,72,000/- as per receipt, in CC 1717/2019 it is evident that the complainants have booked 3 BHK flat measuring 1375 sq.ft. for a total sale consideration of Rs.32,00,000/- for which complainants have paid Rs.11,84,000/- as per MOU, in CC 1718/2019 it is evident that the complainant has booked 2 BHK flat measuring 950 sq.ft. for a total sale consideration of Rs.28,50,000/- for which complainant has paid Rs.14,25,000/- as per receipt, in CC 1719/2019 it is evident that the complainant has booked 2 BHK flat measuring 800 sq.ft. for a total sale consideration of Rs.16,50,000/- for which complainant has paid Rs.5,12,500/- as per MOU and receipt, CC 1720/2019 it is evident that the complainant has booked 2 BHK flat measuring 800 sq.ft. for a total sale consideration of Rs.16,50,000/- for which complainant has paid Rs.5,12,500/- as per MOU and receipt, in CC 1721/2019 it is evident that the complainant has booked 2 BHK flat measuring 800 sq.ft. for a total sale consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- for which complainant has paid Rs.14,30,000/- as per MOU, in CC 1722/2019 it is evident that the complainant has booked 2 BHK flat measuring 1050 sq.f.t. for a total sale consideration of Rs.18,50,000/- for which complainant has paid Rs.7,00,000/- as per MOU, in CC 1723/2019 it is evident that the complainant has booked 2 BHK flat measuring 1000 sq.ft. for a total sale consideration of Rs.20,00,000/- for which complainant has paid Rs.10,00,000/- as per MOU and receipt, in CC 1724/2019 it is evident that the complainant has booked 2 BHK flat measuring 1200 sq.ft. for a total sale consideration of Rs.33,00,000/- for which complainant has paid Rs.18,50,000/- as per MOU and receipt, in CC 1725/2019 it is evident that the complainant has booked 3 BHK flat measuring 1400 sq.ft. for a total sale consideration of Rs.29,50,000/-for which complainant has paid Rs.5,50,000/- as per provisional receipt, in CC 1726/2019 it is evident that the complainant has booked 2 BHK flat measuring 950 sq.ft. for a total sale consideration of Rs.12,00,000/- for which complainant has paid Rs.8,26,410/- as per receipts and cash/bank payment voucher, in CC 1727/2019 it is evident that the complainant has booked 2 BHK flat measuring 800 sq.ft. for a total sale consideration of Rs.18,00,000/- for which complainant has paid Rs.5,50,000/- as per agreement of sale and receipt, in CC 1728/2019 it is evident that the complainants have booked 3 BHK flat measuring 1450 sq.ft. for a total sale consideration of Rs.28,00,000/- for which the complainants have paid Rs.6,00,000/- as per MOU and receipt, in CC 1729/2019 it is evident that the complainant has booked 2 BHK flat measuring 1055 sq.ft. for a total sale consideration of Rs.26,50,000/- for which the complainant has paid Rs.7,54,000/- as per receipts, in CC 1730/2019 the complainant has booked 2 BHK flat measuring 1050 sq.ft. for a total sale consideration of Rs.23,00,000/- for which the complainant has paid Rs.11,50,000/- as per MOU, in CC 1731/2019 it is evident that the complainant has booked 2 BHK flat measuring 950 sq.ft. for a total sale consideration of Rs.21,00,000/- for which complainant has paid Rs.10,50,000/- as per MOU, in CC 1732/2019 it is evident that the complainant has booked 2 BHK flat measuring 950 sq.ft. for a total sale consideration of Rs.12,90,000/- for which the complainant has paid Rs.1,00,000/- as per receipt, in CC 1733/2019 it is evident that complainant has booked 2 BHK flat measuring 850 sq.ft. for a total sale consideration of Rs.16,00,000/- for which the complainant has paid Rs.5,89,200/- as per MOU, bank statement and receipt, in CC 1734/2019 it is evident that complainant has booked 2 BHK flat measuring 950 sq.ft. for a total sale consideration of Rs.16,00,000/- for which complainant has paid Rs.1,00,000/- as per receipt and in CC 1735/2019 it is evident that the complainant has booked 2 BHK flat measuring 850 sq.f.t. for a total sale consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- for which the complainant has paid Rs.4,00,000/- as per receipt.

        11. Any how we place the reliance on the available materials on record.  On going through the contents of the complaints it is evident that the complainants are entered into an MOU with the OPs for purchasing the flats or sites.  In this context, the complainants paid the advance amount which is evident from the documents produced by the complainants.  To falsify all these facts, OPs did not appeared. Upon causing notice, OPs did not respond.  Hence, the complainants sought for refund of amount paid by them with interest at 18% p.a., etc., In this context to place the reliance of the judgement reported in EMAAR MGF Land Ltd., & Anr. V/s Amit Puri, II (2015) CPJ 568 (NC) wherein it was held that, after the promised date of delivery of possession, if the project is not completed, the discretion lies with the Complainant whether he wants to take delivery of possession or seeks refund of earnest money.

“This decision again followed by NCDRC in the decision reported in 2018 (1) CPR 436 (NC) in the case of Vatika Limited., V/s Shaleen Chugh and Anr. Wherein the important point is stated as under:

The act of the Petitioner in not refunding the amount deposited by the Complainants despite not having completed the project on time and further not even having communicated the promised date of delivery of possession, amounts to deficiency in service”.

Hence, option is left open to them for enforcement of the agreement of sale directing the OPs for registration of the sale deed if not sought for refund of money.  In this context, we inclined to direct the OPs to refund the said sum.

 12. With regard to the compensation and interest is concerned, if the interest is charged at the rate of 10% p.a. by way of compensation in the light decision reported in 2019 (1) CPR 650 (NC) in the case of Pradeep Kumar Gupta and Ors. vs. Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd., we hope ends of justice would meet sufficiently.  In the said judgement, it was held that:

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sec.14(1)(c) & (d) and 21–Real estate – Booking of residential flats by Complainants – Case of complainants is that not only possession of apartments was not offered to them, even construction is not complete despite they having made substantial payment to OP – If a builder fails to deliver possession of flat/plot booked with him, within time period committed for this purpose and is unable to justify the said delay, this would constitute defect or deficiency in service rendered by him to buyer and in such a case, this Commission, in exercise of powers conferred upon it by Section 14(1) (c) & (d) of Consumer Protection Act would be competent to direct refund of amount paid by buyer to builder, along with appropriate compensation for loss or injury suffered by buyer due to defect/deficiency in services rendered to him by builder-In all consumer complaints, opposite party shall refund entire principal amount received from complainants along with compensation in form of 10% simple interest- OP shall also pay sum of Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation in each complaint”.

13. The facts of the above said decision are similar to that of the present cases on hand. In the instant cases, though the complainants have paid the substantial part of the amount, but OPs did not commence the project as the land in question where intends it to start the project is litigated land.  In this context the complainants have no other go except to cancel the booking.  In this context there was no response from OPs. When complainants have paid the substantial part of the amount and OPs have failed to discharge their obligation under the booking form and receipts, that itself is deficiency of service.  In this context, we inclined to accept the contention taken by the Complainants with regard to their claim for refund of money covered under the Memorandum of Understanding, receipts and cancellation form.  In the light of decision cited supra, if the interest is charged at the rate of 10% by way of compensation, we hope ends of justice would meet sufficiently.  In this context, we come to conclusion that the complainants are entitled for the refund of the advance amount with interest at the rate of 10% by way of compensation. Further we come to the conclusion to fix an amount of Rs.5,000/- being the cost of litigation to complainants.   Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered Partly in Affirmative.

             14. Point No.2:  In the result, we pass the following:

COMMON ORDER

1. The complaints in CC 1716 to 1735/2019 filed by the complainants are allowed in part. 
2. The OPs are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.10,72,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs seventy two thousand only) in CC 1716/2019 to the complainant along with interest at 10% p.a. by way of compensation from the date of payment till its realization.
3. The OPs are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.11,84,000/- (Rupees eleven lakhs eighty four thousand only) in CC 1717/2019 to the complainants along with interest at 10% p.a. by way of compensation from the date of payment till its realization.
4. The OPs are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.14,25,000/- (Rupees fourteen lakhs twenty five thousand only) in CC 1718/2019 to the complainant along with interest at 10% p.a. by way of compensation from the date of payment till its realization.
5. The OPs are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.5,12,500/- (Rupees five lakhs twelve thousand five hundred only) in CC 1719/2019 to the complainant along with interest at 10% p.a. by way of compensation from the date of payment till its realization.
6. The OPs are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.5,12,500/- (Rupees five lakhs twelve thousand five hundred only) in CC 1720/2019 to the complainant along with interest at 10% p.a. by way of compensation from the date of payment till its realization.
7. The OPs are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.14,30,000/- (Rupees fourteen lakhs thirty thousand only) in CC 1721/2019 to the complainants along with interest at 10% p.a. by way of compensation from the date of payment till its realization.
8. The OPs are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs only) in CC 1722/2019 to the complainant along with interest at 10% p.a. by way of compensation from the date of payment till its realization
9. The OPs are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs only) in CC 1723/2019 to the complainant along with interest at 10% p.a. by way of compensation from the date of payment till its realization.
10. The OPs are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.18,50,000/- (Rupees eighteen lakhs fifty thousand only) in CC 1724/2019 to the complainant along with interest at 10% p.a. by way of compensation from the date of payment till its realization.
11. The OPs are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.5,50,000/-(Rupees five lakhs fifty thousand only) in CC 1725/2020 to the complainant along with interest at 10% p.a. by way of compensation from the date of payment till its realization.
12.  The OPs are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.8,26,410/- (Rupees eight lakhs twenty six thousand four hundred and ten only) in CC 1726/2019 to the complainant along with interest at 10% p.a. by way of compensation from the date of payment till its realization.
13. The OPs are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.5,50,000/- (Rupees fivelakhs fifty thousand only)  in CC 1727/2019 to the complainant along with interest at 10% p.a. by way of compensation from the date of payment till its realization.
14. The OPs are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs only) in CC 1728/2019 to the complainants along with interest at 10% p.a. by way of compensation from the date of payment till its realization.
15. The OPs are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.7,54,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs fiftyfour thousand only) in CC 1729/2019 to the complainant along with interest at 10% p.a. by way of compensation from the date of payment till its realization.
16. The OPs are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.11,50,000/- (Rupees eleven lakhs fifty thousand only) in CC 1730/2019 to the complainant along with interest at 10% p.a. by way of compensation from the date of payment till its realization.
17. The OPs are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.10,50,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs fifty thousand only) in CC 1731/2019 to the complainant along with interest at 10% p.a. by way of compensation from the date of payment till its realization.
18. The OPs are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) in CC 1732/2019 to the complainant along with interest at 10% p.a. by way of compensation from the date of payment till its realization.
19. The OPs are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.5,89,200/- (Rupees five lakhs eighty nine thousand two hundred only) in CC 1733/2019 to the complainant along with interest at 10% p.a. by way of compensation from the date of payment till its realization.
20. The OPs are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) in CC 1734/2019 to the complainant along with interest at 10% p.a. by way of compensation from the date of payment till its realization.
21. The OPs are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) in CC 1735/2019 to the complainant along with interest at 10% p.a. by way of compensation from the date of payment till its realization.
22. The OPs are also jointly and severally directed to pay a litigation cost Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to each complainants.
23. The above said order is to be comply within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainants are at liberty to take steps as per Law.
24. Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.
25. This original order shall be kept in complaint No.1716/2019 and the copy of the same shall be kept in other complaint Nos.1717 to 1735/2019.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Commission on this 25^th day of May, 2021).

In CC No.1716/2019 the complainant produced the following documents are marked as Ex.A.1 to 9:-

In CC No.1717/2019 the complainants produced the following documents are marked as Ex.A.1 to 4:-

In CC No.1718/2019 the complainant produced the following documents are marked as Ex.A.1 to 6:-

In CC No.1719/2019 the complainant produced the following documents are marked as Ex.A.1 to 5:-

In CC No.1720/2019 the complainant produced the following documents are marked as Ex.A.1 to 6:-

In CC No.1721/2019 the complainant produced the following documents are marked as Ex.A.1 and 2:-

In CC No.1722/2019 the complainant produced the following documents are marked as Ex.A.1 to 4:-

In CC No.1723/2019 the complainant produced the following documents are marked as Ex.A.1 to 7:-

In CC No.1724/2019 the complainant produced the following documents are marked as Ex.A.1 to 4:-

In CC No.1725/2019 the complainant produced the following documents are marked as Ex.A.1 to 6:-

In CC No.1726/2019 the complainant produced the following documents are marked as Ex.A.1 to 10:-

In CC No.1727/2019 the complainant produced the following documents are marked as Ex.A.1 to 5:-

In CC No.1728/2019 the complainants produced the following documents are marked as Ex.A.1 to 4:-

In CC No.1729/2019 the complainant produced the following documents are marked as Ex.A.1 to 7:-

In CC No.1730/2019 the complainant produced the following documents are marked as Ex.A.1 to 3:-

In CC No.1731/2019 the complainant produced the following documents are marked as Ex.A.1 and 2:-

In CC No.1732/2019 the complainant produced the following documents are marked as Ex.A.1 to 3:-

In CC No.1733/2019 the complainant produced the following documents are marked as Ex.A.1 to 7:-

In CC No.1734//2019 the complainant produced the following documents are marked as Ex.A.1 to 3:-

In CC No.1735/2019 the complainant produced the following documents are marked as Ex.A.1 to 4:-