Appearance FA 688/2015, FA/689/2015 & 690/2015 For the Appellant : Mr. Vikram Bajaj, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Prem Kumar, Advocate FA 803/2015, FA/804/2015, 805/2015, 809/2015 335/2016, 495/2016, FA/70/2016, FA/1038/2017,FA/1039/2017, FA/1040/2017, FA/1041/2017, FA/1042/2017,FA/1043/2017 FA/1044/2017, FA/1254/2017, FA/1255/2017, FA/1256/2016,FA 1513/2017 For the Appellant : Mr. Prem Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Vikram Bajaj, Advocate Ms.Deipa Asdhir Dubey, Advocate M.S. Sethi, Advocate Mr. Vikram Bajaj, Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate Mr. Pardeep Solath,Advocate Mr. Rishab Kumar , Advocate Mr. A.S.Salar, Advocate FA/1262/2017,FA/1263/2017,FA/1264/2017, FA/1265/2017 &FA/1266/2017, 1540/2017 For the Appellant : Mr. Vikram Bajaj, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Prem Kumar, Advocate FA/1282/2017 For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Prem Kumar, Advocate FA/1335/2017 For the Appellant : Mr. Prem Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr.Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate FA/1336/2017 For the Appellant : Mr. Prem Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Vikram Bajaj, Advocate FA/1423/2017, & FA/1540/2017 For the Appellant : Mr. Vikram Bajaj, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Prem Kumar, Advocate FA/2429/2017, FA/1649/2017 For the Appellant : Mr. Pardeep Solath, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Prem Kumar, Advocate Mr. M.S.Sethi, Advocate Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate FA/2512/2017 & FA/2513/2017 For the Appellant : Mr. Pardeep Solath, Advocate Mr. G.C.Garg, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Sandeev Goyal, Advocate FA/2226/2018 For the Appellant : Mr. G.C.Garg, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate FA/1056/2018 For the Appellant : Mr. Rajat Garg, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Prem Kumar, Advocate FA/2105/2018 For the Appellant : Mr. G.C.Garg, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Rajat Garg, Advocate FA/1612/2017 For the Appellant : appearance not marked For the Respondent : Mr. Prem Kumar, Advocate PER MR. PREM NARAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER Brief facts of these appeals are as under:-
FA 803 of 2015 & FA 688 of 2015 The complainant Jaswinder Singh Virdi, was allotted residential plot no. 182-D measuring 200 sq. yards vide allotment letter dated 02.04.2012 for total consideration of Rs.35,36,950/-. Out of total consideration, complainant has paid 25% of the amount i.e. Rs.6,74,315/- on 28.05.2012 and for remaining 75% of the amount which is to be paid in 5 installments, 4 installments have been paid. The opposite party Jalandhar Improvement Trust (J.I.T.) did not offer the possession of the said plot to the complainant. The complainant sent request vide letter dated 29.05.2014 to E.O. Improvement Trust to either deliver the possession of the plot or to refund the deposited amount if the opposite party was unable to deliver the possession due to any legal impediment/court case pending. The complainant also sent request to the Chairman of J.I.T. to either deliver the possession or to refund the amount vide letter dated 11.06.2014. Aggrieved, the complainant filed a consumer complaint no. 135 of 2014 before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 20.07.2015 partly allowed the complaint with cost of Rs. 5,000/-. The State Commission directed the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.34,11,315/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the dates of different payments of that amount and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant. Not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, First Appeal No.688 of 2015 has been filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation. First Appeal No.803 of 2015 has been filed by the opposite party (J.I.T.) with delay of 14 days against the same impugned order dated 20.07.2015 passed by the State Commission. FA 689 of 2015 & FA 804 of 2015 2. The complainant Gurdev Mal was allotted residential plot no. 114-D measuring 250 sq. yards vide allotment letter dated 02.04.2012 for total consideration of Rs.44,20,950/-. Out of total consideration, the complainant has paid 25% of the amount i.e. Rs.8,08,450/- on 03.05.2012 and for remaining 75% of the amount which is to be paid in 5 installments, 2 installments have been paid. The opposite party Jalandhar Improvement Trust (J.I.T.) did not offer the possession of the said plot to the complainant. Aggrieved, the complainant filed a consumer complaint no. 136 of 2014 before the State Commission. 3. The State Commission vide its order dated 20.07.2015 allowed the complaint with cost of Rs. 5,000/-. The State Commission directed the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.27,98,450/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the dates of different payments of that amount and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant. Not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, First Appeal No.689 of 2015 has been filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation. First Appeal No.804 of 2015 has been filed by the opposite party (J.I.T.) with delay of 14 days against the same impugned order dated 20.07.2015 passed by the State Commission. FA 690 of 2015 and FA 805 of 2015 4. The complainant Jagtar Singh was allotted residential plot no. 192-D measuring 200 sq. yards vide allotment letter dated 02.04.2012 for total consideration of Rs.35,36,950/-. Out of total consideration, the complainant has paid 25% of the amount i.e. Rs.6,46,950/- on 02.05.2012 and for remaining 75% of the amount which is to be paid in 5 installments, 3 installments have been paid. The opposite party Jalandhar Improvement Trust (J.I.T.) did not offer the possession of the said plot to the complainant. Aggrieved, the complainant filed a consumer complaint no. 137 of 2014 before the State Commission. 5. The State Commission vide its order dated 20.07.2015 allowed the complaint with cost of Rs. 5,000/-. The State Commission directed the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.28,33,450/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the dates of different payments of that amount & to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant. Not Satisfied with the order of the State Commission, First Appeal No.690 of 2015 has been filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation. First Appeal No.805 of 2015 has been filed by the opposite party (J.I.T.) with delay of 14 days against the same impugned order dated 20.07.2015 passed by the State Commission. FA 1038 of 2017 and FA 1649 of 2017 6. The complainant Bhim Singh Kundu was allotted residential plot no. 57-D measuring 356 sq. yards vide allotment letter dated 23.12.2011 for total consideration of Rs.62,95,030/-. Out of total consideration, complainant has paid 25% of the amount i.e. Rs.11,51,030/- on 17.01.2012 and for remaining 75% of the amount which is to be paid in 5 installments, 2 installments have been paid. The opposite party Jalandhar Improvement Trust (J.I.T.) has issued a public notice dated 20.01.2016 asking allottees to obtain the possession after executing the agreement to sell as per the condition 7 of the allotment letter. However, the complainant filed a consumer complaint no. 177 of 2015 for the refund of the deposited amount. The State Commission vide its order dated 07.03.2017 allowed the complaint with cost of Rs. 20,000/- wherein Rs.10,000/- to be deposited in legal aid account & Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the complainant. The State Commission directed the opposite party to refund an amount of Rs.33,90,780/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant. Not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, First Appeal No.1038 of 2017 has been filed by the opposite party (J.I.T.). First Appeal No.1649 of 2017 has been filed by the complainant with delay of 84 days for enhancement of compensation against the same impugned order dated 07.03.2017 passed by the State Commission. FA 1042 of 2017 & FA 1540 of 2017 7. The complainant Navneet Goyal was allotted residential plot no. 280-D measuring 200 sq. yards vide allotment letter dated 13.02.2012 for total consideration of Rs.35,36,950/-. Out of total consideration, the complainant has paid 25% of the amount i.e. Rs.6,46,950/- on 07.03.2012 and for remaining 75% of the amount which is to be paid in 5 installments, all the installments have been paid by the complainant. As per the opposite party Jalandhar Improvement Trust (J.I.T.), condition 7 of allotment letter states that possession of the said plot can be taken after the execution of the agreement to sell between the parties but the said agreement was not executed. The trust also issued a public notice dated 20.01.2016 asking allottees to obtain the possession. However, the complainant filed a consumer complaint no. 231 of 2015 for the refund of the deposited amount. The State Commission vide its order dated 07.03.2017 allowed the complaint with cost of Rs.20,000/- wherein Rs.10,000/- to be deposited in legal aid account & Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the complainant. The State Commission directed the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.39,19,450/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint and to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant. Not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, First Appeal No.1042 of 2017 has been filed by the opposite party (J.I.T.). First Appeal No.1540 of 2017 has been filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation with delay of 65 days against the same impugned order dated 07.03.2017 passed by the State Commission. FA 1043 of 2017 & FA 1262 of 2017 8. The complainant Alka Jindal was allotted residential plot no. 74-D measuring 356 sq. yards vide allotment letter dated 23.12.2011 for total consideration of Rs.62,95,030/-. Out of total consideration, the complainant has paid 25% of the amount i.e. Rs.11,95,975/- on 13.02.2012 and for remaining 75% of the amount which is to be paid in 5 installments, all the installments have been paid by the complainant. As per the opposite party Jalandhar Improvement Trust (J.I.T.), condition 7 of allotment letter states that possession of the said plot can be taken after the execution of the agreement to sell between the parties, but the complainant failed to execute the agreement. The trust also issued a public notice dated 20.01.2016 asking allottees to obtain the possession. However, the complainant filed a consumer complaint no. 241 of 2015 for the refund of the deposited amount. The State Commission vide its order dated 07.03.2017 allowed the complaint with cost of Rs. 20,000/- wherein Rs.10,000/- to be deposited in legal aid account & Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the complainant. The State Commission directed the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.70,69,593/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint and to pay compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- to the complainant. Not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, First Appeal No.1043 of 2017 has been filed by the opposite party (J.I.T.). First Appeal No.1262 of 2017 has been filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation against the same impugned order dated 07.03.2017 passed by the State Commission. FA 1044 of 2017 & FA 1266 of 2017 9. The complainant Kusum Kumar was allotted residential plot no. 15-D measuring 356 sq. yards vide allotment letter dated 23.12.2011 for total consideration of Rs.69,24,438/-. Out of total consideration, the complainant has paid 25% of the amount i.e. Rs.13,26,538/- on 23.01.2012 and for remaining 75% of the amount which is to be paid in 5 installments, all the installments have been paid by the complainant. As per the opposite party Jalandhar Improvement Trust (J.I.T.), condition 7 of allotment letter states that possession of the said plot can be taken after the execution of the agreement to sell between the parties, but the complainant failed to execute the agreement. However, the trust issued a public notice dated 20.01.2016 asking allottees to obtain the possession. The opposite party also sent a letter dated 23.02.2016 offering possession to the complainant. The complainant sent a demand notice dated 10.08.2015 to the opposite party requesting for a refund of the amount of Rs.79,52,663/- but no positive response was made. Aggrieved, the complainant filed a consumer complaint no. 269 of 2015 before the State Commission. 10. The State Commission vide its order dated 07.03.2017 allowed the complaint with cost of Rs. 20,000/- wherein Rs.10,000/- to be deposited in legal aid account & Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the complainant. The State Commission directed the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.79,52,663/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint and to pay compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- to the complainant. Not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, First Appeal No.1044 of 2017 has been filed by the opposite party (J.I.T.) with delay of 2 days. First Appeal No.1266 of 2017 has been filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation with delay of 15 days against the same impugned order dated 07.03.2017 passed by the State Commission. FA 1254 of 2017 & FA 1263 of 2017 11. The complainant Harpal Singh Arora was allotted residential plot no. 278-D measuring 200 sq. yards vide allotment letter dated 13.02.2012 for total consideration of Rs.35,36,950/-. Out of total consideration, the complainant has paid 25% of the amount i.e. Rs.6,46,950/- on 07.03.2012 and for remaining 75% of the amount which is to be paid in 5 installments, all the installments have been paid by the complainant. As per the opposite party Jalandhar Improvement Trust (J.I.T.), condition 7 of allotment letter states that possession of the said plot can be taken after the execution of the agreement to sell between the parties. The complainant executed the said agreement on 26.10.2015, thereafter, the trust was ready to deliver the possession of the plot but the complainant did not approach the trust for possession. Further, the trust also issued a public notice dated 20.01.2016 asking allottees to obtain the possession. However, the complainant filed a consumer complaint no. 242 of 2015 for the refund of the deposited amount. The State Commission vide its order dated 07.03.2017 allowed the complaint with cost of Rs. 20,000/- wherein Rs.10,000/- to be deposited in legal aid account & Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the complainant. The State Commission directed the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.39,19,450/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint and to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant. Not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, First Appeal No.1254 of 2017 has been filed by the opposite party (J.I.T.). First Appeal No.1263 of 2017 has been filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation against the same impugned order dated 07.03.2017 passed by the State Commission. FA 1255 of 2017 & FA 1264 of 2017 12. The complainant Parampal Singh was allotted residential plot no. 181-D measuring 200 sq. yards vide allotment letter dated 02.04.2012 for total consideration of Rs.35,36,950/-. Out of total consideration, the complainant has paid 25% of the amount i.e. Rs.6,46,950/- on 19.04.2012 and for remaining 75% of the amount which is to be paid in 5 installments, all the installments have been paid. As per the opposite party Jalandhar Improvement Trust (J.I.T.), condition 7 of allotment letter states that possession of the said plot can be taken after the execution of the agreement to sell between the parties. The complainant executed the said agreement on 13.08.2015 and thereafter, the trust was ready to deliver the possession of the plot but the complainant failed to turn up to obtain the possession. Further, the trust also issued a public notice dated 20.01.2016 asking allottees to obtain the possession. However, the complainant filed a consumer complaint no. 243 of 2015 for the refund of the deposited amount. The State Commission vide its order dated 07.03.2017 allowed the complaint with cost of Rs. 20,000/- wherein Rs.10,000/- to be deposited in legal aid account & Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the complainant. The State Commission directed the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.39,33,950/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint and to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000 to the complainant. Not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, First Appeal No.1255 of 2017 has been filed by the opposite party (J.I.T.). First Appeal No.1264 of 2017 has been filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation against the same impugned order dated 07.03.2017 passed by the State Commission. FA 1256 of 2017 & FA 1265 of 2017 13. The complainant Jatinder Singh was allotted residential plot no. 344-D measuring 250 sq. yards vide allotment letter dated 23.12.2011 for total consideration of Rs.44,20,950/-. Out of total consideration, the complainant has paid 25% of the amount i.e. Rs.8,39,700/- on 10.02.2012 and for remaining 75% of the amount which is to be paid in 5 installments, all the installments have been paid by the complainant. As per the opposite party Jalandhar Improvement Trust (J.I.T.), condition 7 of allotment letter states that possession of the said plot can be taken after the execution of the agreement to sell between the parties. The complainant executed the said agreement on 10.06.2014 and thereafter, the trust was ready to deliver the possession of the plot but the complainant failed to turn up to obtain the possession. Further, the trust also issued a public notice dated 20.01.2016 asking allottees to obtain the possession. However, the complainant filed a consumer complaint no. 255 of 2015 for the refund of the deposited amount. The State Commission vide its order dated 07.03.2017 allowed the complaint with cost of Rs. 20,000/- wherein Rs.10,000/- to be deposited in legal aid account & Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the complainant. The State Commission directed the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.49,30,325/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint and to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant. Not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, First Appeal No.1256 of 2017 has been filed by the opposite party (J.I.T.). First Appeal No.1265 of 2017 has been filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation against the same impugned order dated 07.03.2017 passed by the State Commission. FA 1282 of 2017 & FA 1335 of 2017 14. The complainant Darshan Lal was allotted residential plot no. 193-C measuring 100 sq. yards vide allotment letter dated 02.04.2012 for total consideration of Rs.17,68,950/-. Out of total consideration, the complainant has paid 25% of the amount i.e. Rs.3,23,950/- on 30.04.2012 and for remaining 75% of the amount which is to be paid in 5 installments, all the installments have been paid by the complainant. As per the opposite party Jalandhar Improvement Trust (J.I.T.), condition 7 of allotment letter states that possession of the said plot can be taken after the execution of the agreement to sell between the parties but the said agreement was not executed. However, the trust issued a public notice dated 20.01.2016 asking allottees to obtain the possession. The complainant vide letter dated 02.09.2014 requested for a refund of the deposited amount as there was no development going on the project but no positive response was made. 15. Aggrieved, the complainant filed a consumer complaint no. 86 of 2015 before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 07.03.2017 allowed the complaint with cost of Rs. 20,000/- wherein Rs.10,000/- to be deposited in legal aid account & Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the complainant. The State Commission directed the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.19,69,200/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint and to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant. Not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, First Appeal No.1282 of 2017 has been filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation with delay of 60 days. First Appeal No.1335 of 2017 has been filed by the opposite party (J.I.T.) with delay of 3 days against the same impugned order dated 07.03.2017 passed by the State Commission. FA 1336 of 2017 & FA 1423 of 2017 16. The complainant Rajesh Verma was allotted residential plot no. 152-D measuring 250 sq. yards vide allotment letter dated 23.12.2011 for total consideration of Rs.44,20,950/-. Out of total consideration, the complainant has paid 25% of the amount i.e. Rs.8,08,450/- on 20.01.2012 and for remaining 75% of the amount which is to be paid in 5 installments is yet to be paid by the complainant. The opposite party Jalandhar Improvement Trust (J.I.T.) issued a public notice dated 20.01.2016 asking allottees to obtain the possession after executing the agreement to sell. However, the complainant filed a consumer complaint no. 89 of 2015 for the refund of the deposited amount. The State Commission vide its order dated 07.03.2017 allowed the complaint with cost of Rs. 20,000/- wherein Rs.10,000/- to be deposited in legal aid account & Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the complainant. The State Commission directed the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.12,33,450/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant. Not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, First Appeal No.1336 of 2017 has been filed by the opposite party (J.I.T.) with delay of 3 days. First Appeal No.1423 of 2017 has been filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation with delay of 14 days against the same impugned order dated 07.03.2017 passed by the State Commission. FA 1056 of 2018 & FA 2105 of 2018 17. The complainant Smt. Neelam was allotted residential plot no. 165-D measuring 200 sq. yards vide allotment letter dated 23.12.2011 for total consideration of Rs.35,36,950/-. Out of total consideration, the complainant has paid 25% of the amount i.e. Rs.6,46,950/- on 20.01.2012 and for remaining 75% of the amount which is to be paid in 5 installments, all the installments have been paid. A public notice was published in the newspaper by the trust to all the allottees that they can take the possession from the trust. However, the complainant filed a consumer complaint no. 654 of 2017 for the refund of the deposited amount. The State Commission vide its order dated 19.01.2018 allowed the complaint with cost of Rs. 20,000/- wherein Rs.10,000/- to be deposited in legal aid account & Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the complainant. The State Commission directed the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.35,79,450/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant. Not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, First Appeal No.1056 of 2018 has been filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation. First Appeal No.2105 of 2018 has been filed by the opposite party (J.I.T.) with delay of 27 days against the same impugned order dated 19.01.2018 passed by the State Commission. FA 809 of 2015 18. The complainant Sanjeev Sharma was allotted residential plot no. 31-C measuring 500 sq. yards vide allotment letter dated 23.12.2011 for total consideration of Rs.85,00,000/-. Out of total consideration, the complainant has paid 25% of the amount i.e. Rs.16,95,950/- on 21.01.2012 and for remaining 75% of the amount which is to be paid in 5 installments, is yet to be paid by the complainant. The opposite party Jalandhar Improvement Trust (J.I.T.) sent a letter dated 16.04.2014 to the complainant to obtain the possession of the said plot. The complainant served a legal notice dated 06.12.2013 to the opposite party to handover the possession of the said plot. However, the complainant filed a consumer complaint no. 11 of 2014 for the refund of the deposited amount. The State Commission vide its order dated 16.01.2015 allowed the complaint with cost of Rs. 10,000/-. The State Commission directed the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.24,45,950/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. & to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant. Not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, First Appeal No.809 of 2015 has been filed by the opposite party (J.I.T) with delay of 13 days against the impugned order dated 16.01.2015 passed by the State Commission. FA 335 of 2016 19. The complainant Tek Chand was allotted residential plot no. 28-D measuring 356 sq. yards vide allotment letter dated 02.04.2012 for total consideration of Rs.62,95,030/-. Out of total consideration, the complainant has paid 25% of the amount i.e. Rs.11,51,830/- within 30 days of the date of allotment letter and for remaining 75% of the amount which is to be paid in 5 installments, 3 installments have been paid by the complainant. The opposite party Jalandhar Improvement Trust (J.I.T.) offered an alternative plot in the same scheme area to the complainant vide letter dated 08.10.2015 but the complainant never approached to take the same. Further, the trust also issued a public notice dated 20.01.2016 asking allottees to obtain the possession. The complainant through the counsel on 05.11.2014 made a request for refund of the deposited amount to the opposite party but nothing was done. Aggrieved, the complainant filed a consumer complaint no. 237 of 2014 before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 18.01.2016 allowed the complaint with cost of Rs. 11,000/-. The State Commission directed the opposite party to refund an amount of Rs.50,24,910/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint & to pay compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant. Not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, First Appeal No.335 of 2016 has been filed by the opposite party (J.I.T.) with delay of 04 days against the impugned order dated 18.01.2016 passed by the State Commission. FA 495 of 2016 20. The complainant Hardev Singh was allotted residential plot no. 5-D measuring 356 sq. yards vide allotment letter dated 02.04.2012 for total consideration of Rs.62,95,030/-. Out of total consideration, the complainant has paid 25% of the amount i.e. Rs.11,51,830/- on 30.04.2012 and for remaining 75% of the amount which is to be paid in 5 installments, 4 installments have been paid. The opposite party Jalandhar Improvement Trust (J.I.T.) sent a letter dated 14.08.2015 to the complainant to obtain the possession of the said plot after executing the agreement to sell. Further, the trust also issued a public notice dated 20.01.2016 asking allottees to obtain the possession. However, the complainant filed a consumer complaint no. 129 of 2015 for the refund of the deposited amount. The State Commission vide its order dated 08.03.2016 allowed the complaint with cost of Rs. 11,000/-. The State Commission directed the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.65,95,830/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint and to pay compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- to the complainant. Not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, First Appeal No.495 of 2016 has been filed by the opposite party (J.I.T.) with delay of 04 days against the impugned order dated 08.03.2016 passed by the State Commission. FA 70 of 2016 21. The complainant Karamjit Singh was allotted residential plot no. 238-D measuring 200 sq. yards vide allotment letter dated 02.04.2012 for total consideration of Rs.35,36,950/-. Out of total consideration, the complainant has paid 25% of the amount i.e. Rs.6,46,950/- on 19.04.2012 and for remaining 75% of the amount which is to be paid in 5 installments, 1installment has been paid by the complainant. The opposite party Jalandhar Improvement Trust (J.I.T.) did not offer any possession of the said plot to the complainant. Aggrieved, the complainant filed a consumer complaint no. 59 of 2014 before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 04.12.2015 allowed the complaint with cost of Rs. 11,000/-. The State Commission directed the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.18,15,382/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposits & to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant. Not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, First Appeal No.70 of 2016 has been filed by the opposite party (J.I.T.) against the impugned order dated 04.12.2015 passed by the State Commission. FA 1039 of 2017 22. The complainant Rajinder Kumar Godara was allotted residential plot no. 146-D measuring 250 sq. yards vide allotment letter dated 23.12.2011 for total consideration of Rs.44,20,950/-. Out of total consideration, the complainant has paid 25% of the amount i.e. Rs.8,36,450/- on 08.02.2012 and for remaining 75% of the amount which is to be paid in 5 installments, 3 installments have been paid by the complainant. The opposite party Jalandhar Improvement Trust (J.I.T.) sent a letter dated 16.09.2015 to the complainant to obtain the possession of the said plot after executing the agreement to sell. Further, the trust also issued a public notice dated 20.01.2016 asking allottees to obtain the possession. However, the complainant filed a consumer complaint no. 186 of 2015 for the refund of the deposited amount. The State Commission vide its order dated 07.03.2017 allowed the complaint with cost of Rs. 20,000/- wherein Rs.10,000/- to be deposited in legal aid account & Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the complainant. The State Commission directed the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.35,62,705/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint and to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant. Not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, First Appeal No.1039 of 2017 has been filed by the opposite party (J.I.T.) against the impugned order dated 07.03.2017 passed by the State Commission. FA 1040 of 2017 23. The complainant Surender Lal Yadav was allotted residential plot no. 150-D measuring 250 sq. yards vide allotment letter dated 23.12.2011 for total consideration of Rs.44,20,950/-.Out of total consideration, the complainant has paid 25% of the amount i.e. Rs.8,36,450/- on 08.02.2012 and for remaining 75% of the amount which is to be paid in 5 installments, 3 installments have been paid by the complainant.The opposite party Jalandhar Improvement Trust (J.I.T.) sent a letter dated 16.09.2015 to the complainant to obtain the possession of the said plot after executing the agreement to sell. Further, the trust also issued a public notice dated 20.01.2016 asking allottees to obtain the possession.However, the complainant filed a consumer complaint no. 187 of 2015 for the refund of the deposited amount. The State Commission vide its order dated 07.03.2017 allowed the complaint with cost of Rs. 20,000/- wherein Rs.10,000/- to be deposited in legal aid account & Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the complainant. The State Commission directed the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.35,60,650/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint and to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant. Not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, First Appeal No.1040 of 2017 has been filed by the opposite party (J.I.T.) with delay of 1 day against the impugned order dated 07.03.2017 passed by the State Commission. FA 1041 of 2017 24. The complainant Raj Kumar Setia was allotted residential plot no. 142-D measuring 250 sq. yards vide allotment letter dated 23.12.2011 for total consideration of Rs.44,20,950/-. Out of total consideration, the complainant has paid 25% of the amount i.e. Rs.8,08,450/- and for remaining 75% of the amount which is to be paid in 5 installments, all the installments have been paid by the complainant. The opposite party Jalandhar Improvement Trust (J.I.T.) issued a public notice dated 20.01.2016 asking allottees to obtain the possession. The complainant sent a demand notice dated 17.06.2015 to the opposite party to refund the deposited amount but no positive response was made. Aggrieved, the complainant filed a consumer complaint no. 221 of 2015 before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 07.03.2017 allowed the complaint with cost of Rs. 20,000/- wherein Rs.10,000/- to be deposited in legal aid account & Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the complainant. The State Commission directed the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.48,99,075/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint and to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant. Not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, First Appeal No.1041 of 2017 has been filed by the opposite party (J.I.T.) against the impugned order dated 07.03.2017 passed by the State Commission. FA 1513 of 2017 25. The complainant Sudesh Rani was allotted residential plot no. 109-D measuring 250 sq. yards vide allotment letter dated 13.02.2012 for total consideration of Rs.44,20,950/-. Out of total consideration, the complainant has paid 25% of the amount i.e. Rs.8,08,450/- on 02.03.2012 and for remaining 75% of the amount which is to be paid in 5 installments, 4 installments have been paid. As per the opposite party Jalandhar Improvement Trust (J.I.T.), condition 7 of allotment letter states that possession of the said plot can be taken after the execution of the agreement to sell between the parties but the said agreement was not executed. However, the trust issued a public notice dated 20.01.2016 asking allottees to obtain the possession. In Feb 2014, the complainant after visiting the site requested the OPs to refund the deposited amount but no positive response was made. Aggrieved, the complainant filed a consumer complaint no. 239 of 2015 before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 18.04.2017 allowed the complaint with cost of Rs. 20,000/- wherein Rs.10,000/- to be deposited in legal aid account & Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the complainant. The State Commission directed the opposite party to refund an amount of Rs.42,29,700/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint and to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant. Not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, First Appeal No.1513 of 2017 has been filed by the opposite party (J.I.T.) with delay of 16 days against the impugned order dated 18.04.2017 passed by the State Commission. FA 1612 of 2017 26. The complainant Ravinder Kumar was allotted residential plot no. 53-C measuring 500 sq. yards vide allotment letter dated 02.04.2012 for total consideration of Rs.88,40,950/-. Out of total consideration, the complainant has paid 25% of the amount i.e. Rs.16,15,950/- on 01.05.2012 and for remaining 75% of the amount which is to be paid in 5 installments, is yet to be paid by the complainant.The opposite party Jalandhar Improvement Trust (J.I.T.) did not offer the possession of the said plot to the complainant. The complainant sent a demand notice dated 04.07.2014 to the opposite party to refund the deposited amount but no positive response was made. Aggrieved, the complainant filed a consumer complaint no. 163 of 2017 before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 07.03.2017 allowed the complaint with cost of Rs. 20,000/- wherein Rs.10,000/- to be deposited in legal aid account & Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the complainant. The State Commission directed the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.19,56,950/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint and to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant. Not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, First Appeal No.1612 of 2017 has been filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation with delay of 20 days against the impugned order dated 07.03.2017 passed by the State Commission. FA 2429 of 2017 27. The complainant Gaurav Arora was allotted residential plot no. 382-D measuring 200 sq. yards vide allotment letter dated 23.12.2011 for total consideration of Rs.35,36,950/-. Out of total consideration, the complainant has paid 25% of the amount i.e. Rs.6,46,950/- on 17.01.2012 and for remaining 75% of the amount which is to be paid in 5 installments, 2 installments have been paid by the complainant. The opposite party Jalandhar Improvement Trust (J.I.T.) offered an alternative plot to the complainant. Further, the trust also issued a public notice dated 20.01.2016 asking allottees to obtain the possession. The complainant served a legal notice dated 18.02.2014 to the opposite party to sought refund of entire deposited amount. However, the complainant filed a consumer complaint no. 21 of 2015 for the refund of the deposited amount. State Commission vide its order dated 30.03.2017 allowed the complaint with cost of Rs. 20,000/- wherein Rs.10,000/- to be deposited in legal aid account & Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the complainant. The State Commission directed the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.22,36,450/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint and to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant. Not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, First Appeal No.2429 of 2017 has been filed by the opposite party (J.I.T.) with delay of 57 days against the impugned order dated 30.03.2017 passed by the State Commission. FA 2512 of 2017 28. The complainant Darshan Singh was allotted residential plot no. 194-D measuring 200 sq. yards vide allotment letter dated 02.04.2012 for total consideration of Rs.35,36,950/-. Out of total consideration, the complainant has paid 25% of the amount i.e. Rs.6,46,950/- on 30.04.2012 and for remaining 75% of the amount which is to be paid in 5 installments, all the installments have been paid by the complainant. The opposite party Jalandhar Improvement Trust (J.I.T.) offered the possession of said plot to the complainant vide letter dated 01.03.2016. However, the complainant filed a consumer complaint no. 100 of 2016 for the refund of the deposited amount. The State Commission vide its order dated 21.07.2017 allowed the complaint with cost of Rs. 20,000/-. The State Commission directed the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.39,18,950/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of deposit of money and to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant. Not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, First Appeal No.2512 of 2017 has been filed by the opposite party (J.I.T.) with delay of 5 days against the impugned order dated 21.07.2017 passed by the State Commission. FA 2513 of 2017 29. The complainant Dharampal Jindal was allotted residential plot no. 160-D measuring 200 sq. yards vide allotment letter dated 13.02.2012 for total consideration of Rs.35,36,950/-. Out of total consideration, the complainant has paid 25% of the amount i.e. Rs.7,45,550/- on 12.03.2012 and for remaining 75% of the amount which is to be paid in 5 installments, 1 installment has been paid. The opposite party Jalandhar Improvement Trust (J.I.T.) did not offer the possession of the said plot to the complainant. Aggrieved, the complainant filed a consumer complaint no. 101 of 2016 before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 21.07.2017 allowed the complaint with cost of Rs. 20,000/-. The State Commission directed the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.18,34,090/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date deposit of money and to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant. Not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, First Appeal No.2513 of 2017 has been filed by the opposite party (J.I.T.) with delay of 5 days against the impugned order dated 21.07.2017 passed by the State Commission. FA 2226 of 2018 30. In the original complaint CC No. 48/2018, the complainant Naveen Kumar was allotted residential plot no. 25-C measuring 500 sq. yards vide allotment letter dated 23.12.2011 for total consideration of Rs.96,90,950/-. Out of total consideration, the complainant has paid 25% of the amount i.e. Rs.18,62,450/- on 19.01.2012 and for remaining 75% of the amount which is to be paid in 5 installments is yet to be paid by the complainant. The opposite party Jalandhar Improvement Trust (J.I.T.) offered the possession of said plot to the complainant vide letter dated 01.12.2015. Further, the trust also issued a public notice dated 20.01.2016 asking allottees to obtain the possession.The father of the complainant requested OPs vide letter dated 05.03.2013 to refund the deposited amount but no positive response was made. Aggrieved, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 16.05.2018 allowed the complaint with cost of Rs. 20,000/- wherein Rs.10,000/- to be deposited in legal aid account & Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the complainant. The State Commission directed the opposite party to refund an amount of Rs.27,12,450/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant. Not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, First Appeal No.2226 of 2018 has been filed by the opposite party (J.I.T.) with delay of 2 days against the impugned order dated 16.05.2018 passed by the State Commission. 31. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 32. The learned counsel for the Jalandhar Improvement Trust ( JIT) stated that once an applicant under a scheme becomes successful in the lottery draw, then there is no provision of refund of deposited amount under the rules of the Trust. In fact, all these complainants are seeking refund because the real estate market has gone down and the complainants may not be seeing their investment growing up as rapidly as they had thought when they booked the plots. In fact, the plots are ready and the Trust is ready to hand over the possession immediately to the complainants. Even all the development works are complete in the scheme. If the complainants were the genuine seekers of plots for the residential purpose, then they should have come forward to take the possession. The fact is that these complainants were basically investors and had booked these plots for commercial purpose with a view to earn profit. Thus, these complainants cannot be considered as consumers under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. When the Trust is ready to hand over the possession of developed plots, there should be no question of refund to the complainants. The State Commission has not considered this aspect and has ordered the refund to these complainants along with heavy interest. 33. It has been further stated by the learned counsel for the JIT that the State Commission has grossly erred in appreciating the fact that it was in respect of only a small portion of project land that the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana had ordered a status quo, but there was no stay in respect of the most of the plots and there was no hindrance in taking the possession for those complainants. The State Commission has considered status quo as operating for all such complainants also. 34. That the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if the authority received the full price and does not deliver the possession only then the allottee is entitled for refund of the paid amount. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in judgment, Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank reported as 2007(6) SCC 711 has been held:- “Where the development authority having received the full price, does not deliver the possession of the allotted plot within reasonable time, only then the allottee is entitled for refund of the amount paid.” “Where an alternative site is offered in view of its inability to deliver the earlier allotted plot or where the delay in delivering of possession of the allotted plot is for justifiable reasons, ordinarily the allottee will not be entitled to any compensation.” In a self- financing scheme, the installments paid by the allottees are used for construction. If an allottee does not pay the installments, then cannot obviously expect completion of construction.’’ 35. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in another Judgment “Prashant Kuma Shahi Vs. Ghaziabad Development Authority”, 2000 (4) SCC 120 has been held:- “Having failed to perform his part of the contract, the complainant cannot be permitted to urge that he is not liable to pay the balance amount along with interest as according to him the authority had failed to deliver possession as per terms of the brochure. The authority was not expected to deliver the possession in the absence of the payment of the agreed amount.” 36. In all these cases the complainant has failed to deposit the full amount of the plot and also failed to execute the agreement to sell, therefore, in view of the abovementioned judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the order passed by the State Commission, Punjab is liable to be set aside. 37. That the complainant is defaulter and failed to make the payment of installments as per allotment letter. As per terms and condition, the allottee was required to deposit 1/4th amount and the remaining 75% of the plot amount to be paid in five installments. The relevant terms and conditions of the allotment letter are reproduced below:- Condition No.3:- In case the allottee failed to pay the installment within six months from the date fixed for installment, then it will be deemed that plot of allottee has been forfeited and the same will be restored within three months only if penal interest, 20% restoration charges and 6% penalty is paid. Condition No.5:- The agreement of sale shall be executed within 30 days from the issuance of this letter on the stamp paper of Rs.500/- in the name of the Chairman Jalandhar Improvement Trust alongwith 2 witnesses for the computerized Photograph by the allottee in the office of the trust. 38. That as per condition no.3, the complainant has to deposit the installment within specific time as shown in schedule but the complainant utterly failed to deposit the same. As per condition 5, an agreement to sell was to be executed within 30 days of the issuance of the allotment letter, but again the complainant failed to execute the agreement to sell. The complainant neither paid all the installments nor executed the agreement to sell within 30 days from the issuance of the allotment letter. Therefore, the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. It is submitted that the parties are governed by the terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Consumer courts cannot travel beyond the terms and conditions between the parties. 39. The learned counsel further argued that the complainants are demanding the appeals to be decided on the lines of the decision of this Commission in Jalandhar Improvements Trust & anr. Vs. Archit Gupta, FA No.996 of 2017 decided on 14.06.2019 (NC). The fact is that Archit Gupta filed the complaint before the vacation of the status quo order of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana and due to the status quo order operating at that time, the JIT was not in a position to give the possession of the plot as the plot of Archit Gupta was covered under the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana. 40. The learned counsel has further argued that as the complainants have not paid as per the allotment letter in most cases, they are defaulters and if they want to cancel the allotment then the JIT has the right to deduct the earnest money which is the booking amount. This view has been held by this Commission in revision petition no.2600 of 2016, Baljeet Singh Sandhu versus Jalandhar improvement Trust, decided on 20.09.2016 where the following has been observed by this Commission:- “7. Considering the terms and conditions of the scheme as also the terms and conditions stipulated in the allotment letter, the complainant was under a contractual obligation to pay 25% of the sale price of the plot within 30 days from the issue of the allotment letter. Admittedly, the petitioner/complainant did not pay 25% of the sale price of the plot within the aforesaid period. Therefore, exercising its right under the terms and conditions contained in the brochure and the allotment letter, the respondent was entitled to cancel the allotment and forfeit the amount which the complainant/petitioner had deposited. 8. Even if it is accepted that there was no development going on at the site when allotment was made to the petitioner/complainant, he ought to have made payment as per the terms and conditions of the allotment since the payment plan stipulated in the scheme and the allotment letter was not a development linked plan but was a time linked plan wherein the allottee has to make payment in a time bound manner and in the event of default in making payment, the earnest money can be forfeited as per the terms and conditions of the allotment. Had the petitioner/complainant made payment as per the terms and conditions of allotment and the respondent had failed to deliver possession of a developed plot, he would have been justified not only in seeking refund of the money paid by him but also claiming adequate compensation from the respondent. But, the petitioner/complainant himself having default in making payment of the instalments for the plot allotted to him, he cannot seek refund of the amount which he had deposited as earnest money.” 41. It was further pointed out by the learned counsel for the JIT that in a similar case, this Commission has held that the complainant was not entitled to interest on the refund amount from the date of deposits rather only from next month from the date of last payment. The judgment of this commission in Consumer Complaint No.172 of 2016 Raj Kumar Goyal versus Jalandhar Improvement Trust, decided on 02.01.2020 has observed the following:- 14. From the above examination, it is clear that there is a delay in offering the possession and the land was also in dispute, therefore, the complainant is fully authorised to seek refund of his paid amount from the OPs. Now coming to the question of awarding of interest, it is seen that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd., vs Devasis Rudra – Civil Appeal no.3182 of 2019 – 2019 SCC online SC 438 decided on 25.03.2019, has reduced the rate of interest from 12% per annum granted by this Commission on the amount of refund to 9% per annum. Clearly, the amount paid by the complainant had been invested in the project and there was no whisper of refund even after paying the whole amount to the OPs and request for refund was moved for the first time in the year 2015. Moreover, the complaint has been filed after the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh decided the matter on 22.12.2015. Public notice was issued by the OPs, wherein it was informed that the possession would be ready by January 2016, therefore, the complainant must have been aware before filing of the complaint that the stay order has been vacated and the trust is ready to give possession of the plot, still the complainant sought refund of the amount paid to the OPs. It is true that the complainant is entitled to get refund as there has been delay of roughly two years in handing over the possession. However, he is entitled to interest only from next month from the date of last payment. Last payment was made on 19.12.2014, therefore, the complainant is entitled to get interest from 01.01.2015 in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 42. The learned counsel for the JIT further stated that the status quo order of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana was only for a small portion of land whereas all the complainants want to take benefit of this order. In fact, after the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana on 22nd December 2015, a general resolution was passed by the Trust that Trust will proceed with the project and the possession would be given to the allottees soon. In the public notice, it was mentioned that the development work will start soon and possession may be taken by the allottees in January 2016. The Trust also gave individual notices to all the complainants to come and take possession, however, complainants did not come to take possession. 43. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainants stated that the State Commission has rightly allowed the complaints of these complainants and has ordered refund of the deposited amounts along with interest. The learned counsel stated that there was a delay in handing over the possession of the plots by the Trust and the allottees could not have waited any further because the land was also in dispute as there was a status quo order dated 8th March 2011 by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Though the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana decided the case on 22nd December 2015, but still the landowners have gone to Hon’ble Supreme Court and in the meanwhile, the JIT issued the alleged offer letters of possession. As the fate of land was still uncertain, the complainants filed consumer complaints for refund of the deposited amounts. Some complainants had earlier filed the complaints for refund as no complainant wanted to block his or her money in a project where the land was disputed. After the decision of the Hon’ble High Court on 22nd December 2015, when the public notice was issued, it was mentioned in the public notice that development work would start soon and possession was likely to be given in January 2016. This itself means that till that time the development was not complete. The fact is that there was no development in the project till there was a status quo order of the Hon’ble High Court. Thus, when the complainants did not see any progress in the project for about four or five years, then there was no alternative for the complainants but to seek refund as no allottee can wait for an indefinite period to get possession of the plot. The learned counsel mentioned that this Commission has upheld the orders of refund passed by the State Commission in many of its judgments. Even in the consumer complaints, this Commission has passed orders for refund under the same project in a number of cases. To refer a few, the learned counsel drew my attention to the following judgments:- 1. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and Ors. Vs. Munish Dev Sharma, FA No. 1215 of 2014, decided on 01.07.2015 (NC) 2. Jalandhar Improvements Trust & anr. Vs. Archit Gupta, FA No.996 of 2017 decided on 14.06.2019 (NC) 3. Jalandhar Improvement Trust & anr. Vs. Pooja Garj, FA 995 of 2017, decided on 10.04.2019 (NC) 4. CC No.172 of 2016, Raj Kumar Goyal Vs. Jalandhar Improvement Trust & anr. decided on 02.01.2020 (NC) 5. CC No.62 of 2016 Arvindjeet Singh Vs. Jalandhar Improvement Trust & anr. decided on 01.10.2019 (NC) 44. The learned counsel for the complainants stated that some of the complainants have also filed appeals against the orders passed by the State Commission for enhancement of the compensation. In this regard the learned counsel stated that the appeals of the complainants may be decided on the basis of the order passed by this Commission in Archit Gupta's case because most of the complainants have taken housing loan and therefore the rate of interest for the housing loan must be granted to the complainants on the amount of refund. 45. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both the sides and have examined the record of each case. The common issue is whether the complainants are entitled to get refund. In a similar case of the same project, this commission in Consumer complaint no. 172 of 2016 Raj Kumar Goyal versus Jalandhar Improvement Trust (Supra) has observed the following:- “10. The question whether stay was on the part of the land or on the whole land is immaterial because, the public notice wherein it has been stated that the development work will start soon and possession may be taken in January 2016 was issued for all the allottees. The plot of the complainant was also covered under the stay as no offer letter for possession was issued to the complainant before the date of order of the Hon’ble High Court. Even the individual letter of offer of possession was only issued on 23.02.2016. The public notice clearly shows that before the order of the Hon’ble High Court, there was no development work going on in pursuance of the order dated 08.03.2011 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. Therefore, there is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant wanted refund as he did not want to engage in any form of litigation as the land was in dispute. 11. Moreover it is seen that the letter dated 23.02.2016 which is being called as offer letter for possession by the OPs is really not an offer letter of possession as it is only a letter of demand and to get the allotted plot demarcated as would be clear from the contents of this letter which reads as under: “You were allotted the plot in the above noted Surya Enclave Extension. As you are that some of the land owners had filed a case in the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in which they had obtained the stay on some portion of the acquired land because of which great difficulties were being faced to undertake the development works simultaneously. After the decision in favour of the Trust on 22.12.2015, the development works such as Roads, Water Supply and Sewerage are being carried out at a great speed. You are requested to come to the Trust Office and deposit the balance amount/ after the execution of the agreement, obtain the demarcation of your plot”. 12. It is also true that once there was a status quo order dated 08.03.2011 from the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh, the scheme floated should have been stayed by the OPs, however, they accepted the booking amounts and also allotted plot numbers to different allottees. In fact, the further amounts were also received. 13. In my view, these activities of the OPs amount to unfair trade practice and thus, deficiency in service on the part of the OPs is evident. Otherwise also, as possession was to be delivered in the year 2014 as per the scheme, however, the same was allegedly offered in February 2016. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.12238 of 2018 titled as “Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. versus Govindan Raghavan” has observed that if the possession is highly delayed, the complainant cannot be compelled to accept the property in question and the complainant has every right to seek refund. The order reads as follows: “3.8. The National Commission vide Final Judgment and Order dated 23.10.2018 allowed the Consumer Complaint filed by the Respondent - Flat Purchaser, and held that since the last date stipulated for construction had expired about 3 years before the Occupancy Certificate was obtained, the Respondent - Flat Purchaser could not be compelled to take possession at such a belated stage. The grounds urged by the Appellant - Builder for delay in handing over possession were not justified, so as to deny awarding compensation to the Respondent - Flat Purchaser. The clauses in the Agreement were held to be wholly one - sided, unfair, and not binding on the Respondent - Flat Purchaser. 6 The Appellant - Builder was directed to refund Rs. 4,48,43,026/- i.e. the amount deposited by the Respondent - Flat Purchaser, along with Interest @10.7% S.I. p.a. towards compensation. 9. We see no illegality in the Impugned Order dated 23.10.2018 passed by the National Commission. The Appellant - Builder failed to fulfill 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. 10. 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.” 46. As the facts of all these cases are more or less similar to the above referred case, the observations of this Commission in the above referred case are fully and equally applicable in all these cases. Thus, the orders passed by the State Commission in these cases for refund of the deposited amounts are totally appropriate. 47. From the observations made in the judgment of this Commission in Raj Kumar versus Jalandhar Improvement Trust (Supra), the assertion of the learned counsel for the JIT that the JIT is ready with the possession and therefore refund should not be ordered cannot be considered because after the sufficient gap after due date of possession, a complainant cannot be compelled to take possession as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.12238 of 2018 titled as “Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. versus Govindan Raghavan” where the Apex Court has observed: “3.8. The National Commission vide Final Judgment and Order dated 23.10.2018 allowed the Consumer Complaint filed by the Respondent - Flat Purchaser, and held that since the last date stipulated for construction had expired about 3 years before the Occupancy Certificate was obtained, the Respondent - Flat Purchaser could not be compelled to take possession at such a belated stage. The grounds urged by the Appellant - Builder for delay in handing over possession were not justified, so as to deny awarding compensation to the Respondent - Flat Purchaser. The clauses in the Agreement were held to be wholly one - sided, unfair, and not binding on the Respondent - Flat Purchaser. 6 The Appellant - Builder was directed to refund Rs. 4,48,43,026/- i.e. the amount deposited by the Respondent - Flat Purchaser, along with Interest @10.7% S.I. p.a. towards compensation. 9. We see no illegality in the Impugned Order dated 23.10.2018 passed by the National Commission. The Appellant - Builder failed to fulfill 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.” 48. The learned counsel for the JIT has also vehemently argued that as per the rules of the JIT, once an allottee has become successful in the lottery then his money cannot be refunded and if the same is refunded, the JIT would be entitled to forfeit the earnest money. The complaints have been filed under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and the consumer forum has power to order refund under section 14 (1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the JIT cannot be sustained. It is just a presumption of the learned counsel for the JIT that the complainants are seeking refund as they are not hopeful of getting expected returns on their investment as no proof has been filed in this regard. The complainants had booked the plots with the JIT and therefore they are definitely the consumers. In very few cases the complainants had booked more than one plot but in such cases also, the complainants would be deemed to be consumers because it has not been proved that they booked the plots for any commercial purpose or for sale of those plots. It has also not been asserted by the JIT that those complainants are engaged in purchase and sale of such plots. In view of the following decisions of this Commission, such complainants would also be treated as consumers. 1. Aashish Oberai Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited, Consumer Case No. 70 of 2015, decided on 14.09.2016. It has been held that:- “In the case of the purchase of the houses which a builder undertakes to construct for the buyer, the purchase can be said to be for a commercial purpose where it is shown, by producing evidence, that the buyer is engaged in the business of a buying and selling of houses and or plots as a trading activity, with a view to make profits by sale of such houses or plots. A person cannot be said to have purchased a house for a commercial purpose only by proving that he owns or had purchased more than one houses or plots. In a given case, separate houses may be purchased by a person for the individual use of his family members. A person owning a house in a city A may also purchase a house in city B for the purpose of staying in that house during short visits to that city. A person may buy two or three houses if the requirement of his family cannot be met in one house. Therefore, it would not be correct to say that in every case where a person owns more than one house, the acquisition of the house is for a commercial purpose”. It was also observed that:- “It would be pertinent to note that there is no evidence of the complainant having purchased and then sold any residential property. Therefore, it would be difficult to say that he was engaged in the business of the buying and selling of the property or that villa in question was booked by him for speculative purposes”. 2. Kavit Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. & Jai Krishna Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd., I(2016) CPJ31(NC), wherein three flats were booked by the complainant, this Commission held the complainant to be a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and held as follows:- “In the case of the purchase of houses which the service provider undertakes to construct for the purchaser, the purchase can be said to be for a commercial purpose only where it is shown that the purchaser is engaged in the business of purchasing and selling houses and / or plots on a regular basis, solely with a view to make profit by sale of such houses. If however, a house to be constructed by the service provider is purchased by him purely as an investment and he is not undertaking the trading of houses on a regular basis and in the normal course of the business profession or services in which he is engaged, it would be difficult to say that he had purchased houses for a commercial purpose. A person having surplus funds available with him would not like to keep such funds idle and would seek to invest them in such a manner that he gets maximum returns on his investment. He may invest such funds in a Bank Deposits, Shares, Mutual Funds and Bonds or Debentures etc. Likewise, he may also invest his surplus funds in purchase of one or more houses, which is/are proposed to be constructed by the service provider, in the hope that he would get better return on his investment by selling the said house(s) on a future date when the market value of such house (s) is higher than the price paid or agreed to be paid by him. That by itself would not mean that he was engaged in the commerce or business of purchasing and selling the house (s). 7. Generating profit by way of trading, in my view is altogether different from earning capital gains on account of appreciation in the market value of the property unless it is shown that the person acquiring the property was engaged in such acquisition on a regular basis and it was by way of a business activity. 8. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works (supra) what is a ‘commercial purpose’ is a question of fact to be decided in the facts of each case and it is not the value of the goods that matters but the purpose for which the goods brought are put to. The same would be equally applicable to for hiring or availing services. 9. In any case, it is not appropriate to classify such acquisition as a commercial activity merely on the basis of the number of houses purchased by a person, unless it is shown that he was engaged in the business of selling and purchasing of houses on a regular basis. If, for instance, a person has two-three children in his family and he purchased three houses one for each of them, it would be difficult to say that the said houses were purchased by him for a commercial purpose. His intention in such a case is not to make profit at a future date but is to provide residential accommodation to his children on account of the love and affection he has for his children. To take another example, if a person has a house say in Delhi but he has business in other places as well and therefore, purchases one or more houses at other places where he has to live presently in connection with the business carried by him, it would be difficult to say that such acquisition is for commercial purpose. To give one more example, a person owning a house in a Metropolitan city such as Delhi, or Mumbai, may acquire a house at a hill station or a place, which is less crowded and more peaceful than a Metropolitan city, in my view, it cannot be said that such acquisition would be for commercial purpose. In yet another case, a person may be owning a house but the accommodation may not be sufficient for him and his family, if he acquires one or more additional houses, it cannot be said that he has acquired them for commercial purpose. Many more such examples can be given. Therefore, it cannot be said that merely because of the complainant had agreed to purchase three flats in the same complex the said acquisition was for a commercial purpose”. 49. This Commission, in Rajesh Malhotra & Ors. Vs. Acron Developers & 2 Ors., First Appeal No. 1287 of 2014, decided on 05.11.2015 has held as follows:- “12. Therefore, in order to determine whether the goods are purchased for commercial purpose, the basic pre-requisite would be whether the subject goods have been purchased or the services availed of with the prime motive of trading or business activity in them, for the purpose of making profit, which, as held in Laxmi Engineering (supra) is always a question of fact to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case”. 50. The learned counsel for the JIT has emphasized that if the complainant pays the full amount then only he is entitled for refund as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bangalore Development Authority versus Syndicate Bank (Supra). It is true that if the complainant pays the full consideration then the complainant is definitely entitled for refund in case of delay in possession, however, there may be other situations also when the complainant may be entitled for refund of the paid amount even if it is not 100%, if there is deficiency on the part of the builder or developer in handing over the possession, particularly in these cases when the land was in dispute and remained in dispute for about 4 years. When there was no progress in the project, the complainants decided not to pay the 100% payment to the opposite party as they feared that their money will be blocked as the land was in dispute and under litigation. It seems that as and when the complainants came to know about the litigation with respect to the land on which the project was being built, they may have decided to stop the payment of installments. In the circumstances of the cases, I do not see this breach of the agreement as resulting into the forfeiture of their earnest money. Moreover, the earnest money can only be forfeited if the opposite party has suffered any loss as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Kailash Nath Associates Vs. Delhi Development Authority & Anr., Civil Appeal No.193 of 2015, decided on January 09, 2015, wherein the following has been observed:- “29. Based on the facts of this case, it would be arbitrary for the DDA to forfeit the earnest money on two fundamental grounds. First, there is no breach of contract on the part of the appellant as has been held above. And second, DDA not having been put to any loss, even if DDA could insist on a contractual stipulation in its favour, it would be arbitrary to allow DDA as a public authority to appropriate Rs.78,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Eight Lakhs) without any loss being caused. It is clear, therefore, that Article 14 would apply in the field of contract in this case and the finding of the Division Bench on this aspect is hereby reversed.” 51. In the present case, the plots have been developed now as per the assertion of the JIT and therefore they will most likely sell at a higher price than the prices when the plots were originally booked. Thus, there seems to be no chances of getting any loss to the opposite party. Accordingly in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kailash Nath Associates versus DDA (Supra) no justification is made out for forfeiture of their earnest money. 52. So far as condition number 3 of the allotment letter is concerned, it relates to payment of delayed installments with penal interest. There was no bar for the JIT to have implemented this condition. Similarly, condition number 5 relates to signing of agreement of sale within 30 days from the date of issuance of the allotment letter. In some cases agreement of sale has been signed whereas in some cases this has not been signed. Both parties allege each other for not signing the agreement of sale. As this seems only a formality for getting the commitment of the complainant, I do not see this deficiency as a reason for not ordering refund in case of deficiency on the part of the opposite party for not being able to complete the project in time and to hand over the possession of plot in time. 53. This Commission has taken a consistent view in similar matters (may be consumer complaints or first appeals) that the complainants are entitled to get refund along with interest. In the following three cases, this Commission has ordered refund along with interest @ 9% per annum. 1. Jalandhar improvement Trust and Ors. Vs. Munish Dev Sharma, FA No.1215 of 2014, decided on 01.07.2015 (NC) 2. CC No.172 of 2016, Raj Kumar Goyal Vs. Jalandhar Improvement Trust & anr. decided on 02.01.2020 (NC) 3. CC No.62 of 2016 Arvindjeet Singh Vs. Jalandhar Improvement Trust & anr. decided on 01.10.2019 (NC) 54. The learned counsel for the complainants has mainly requested that the compensation be granted as per the order of this Commission in Archit Gupta's case (supra). In my view, the final order should be executable in precise terms not leaving anything to be decided by the executing court. Therefore, I would like to prefer to order a fixed rate of interest. This commission has granted 9% p.a interest in most of the cases relating to Jalandhar Improvement Trust and particularly even in those cases filed by the complainants namely Jalandhar improvement Trust and Ors. Vs. Munish Dev Sharma, (supra), Raj Kumar Goyal Vs. Jalandhar Improvement Trust & anr. and Arvindjeet Singh Vs. Jalandhar Improvement Trust & anr. (supra). 55. Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. & anr. Vs. D S Dhanda, ETC; Sudesh Goyal, ETC, 2019 Law Suit (SC) 1207 has clearly observed that in refund cases an interest @9% p.a. would be reasonable and sufficient. Thus, it is clear that the Hon’ble Supreme Court is not in favour of granting more interest in refund cases in the current interest scenario. It is seen that the State Commission in most of the cases have ordered refund with 9% p.a. interest. However, in FA No.2512 of 2017 and FA No.2513 of 2017, the State Commission has granted 12% interest which cannot be allowed. 56. Interest is also a form of compensation and therefore, if interest has been ordered, there is no justification for separate compensation for mental agony and harassment. Thus, the complainants are not entitled to the compensation awarded by the State Commission. 57. Based on the above discussion, the following orders are passed: 58. The appeals filed by the JIT (except FA 2512 and 2513 of 2017) are partly allowed and the impugned orders of the State Commission are modified to the extent that the orders relating to award of compensation are set aside. However, the orders of refund along with 9% p.a. interest together with cost of litigation (if any, ordered) are upheld. FA/2512/2017, FA/2513/2017 59. These two appeals are partly allowed and the rate of interest of 12% p.a. as awarded by the State Commission on the amounts of refund is reduced to 9% p.a. The order awarding compensation is also set aside. The cost of litigation awarded by the State Commission is upheld. 60. The appeals filed by the complainants are dismissed. |
