Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/13/2023

SANJAY KAUSHISH - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S MANOHAR INFRASTRUCTURE & CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

SANJEEV GUPTA & RIPUDAMAN SINGH

04 Nov 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/13/2023
Date of Institution	:	6/01/2023
Date of Decision	:	4/11/2024

 

Sanjay Kaushish son of Sh. Satya Pal Kaushish resident of 1859, Crocus CT Tracy, CA, 95376, Unites States of America. India Address- F-713 R2, First Floor, DLF, Mullanpur, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab-140901.

Complainant

V E R S U S

1. M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Private Limited, having its registered office at SCO No.139-141, Sector 17C, First Floor, Chandigarh through its Managing Director/Authorised signatory.
2. Tarninder Singh, Managing Director/Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Private Limited, having its registered office at SCO No.139-141, Sector 17C, First Floor, Chandigarh.
3. Narinderbir Singh, Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Private Limited, having its registered office at SCO No.139-141, Sector 17C, First Floor, Chandigarh.

Opposite Parties

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate for complainants
	:	Sh. Nitesh Singhi, Advocate for OPs (through VC)

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/146/2023
Date of Institution	:	22/3/2023
Date of Decision	:	4/11/2024

 

Sukhpal Singh son of Sh. Harminder Singh

2. Maninder Singh son of Sh. Harminder Singh

Residents of Village Muradwal, Fazilka, Abohar, Punjab.

 

Complainant

V E R S U S

1. M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Private Limited, having its registered office at SCO No.139-141, Sector 17C, First Floor, Chandigarh through its Managing Director/Authorised signatory.
2. Tarninder Singh, Managing Director/Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Private Limited, having its registered office at SCO No.139-141, Sector 17C, First Floor, Chandigarh.
3. Narinderbir Singh, Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Private Limited, having its registered office at SCO No.139-141, Sector 17C, First Floor, Chandigarh.
4. Greater Mohali Area Development Authority through Chief Administrator/Administrator, PUDA Bhawan, Sector-62, SAS  Nagar, Punjab.

Opposite Parties

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate for complainants
	:	Sh. Nitesh Singhi, Advocate for OPs NO.1 to3 (through VC)
	:	Ishtneet Bhatia, Advocate for OP No.4

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/149/2023
Date of Institution	:	22/3/2023
Date of Decision	:	4/11/2024

 

1. Tejwinder Singh son of Gurdarshan Singh

2. Lakhwinder Singh son of Gurdarshan Singh

Both residents of Gobindgarh Link Road, Near Jeet Singh Sidhu Saw Mill, Abohar-Punjab

...Complainant

V E R S U S

1. M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Private Limited, having its registered office at SCO No.139-141, Sector 17C, First Floor, Chandigarh through its Managing Director/Authorised signatory.
2. Tarninder Singh, Managing Director/Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Private Limited, having its registered office at SCO No.139-141, Sector 17C, First Floor, Chandigarh.
3. Narinderbir Singh, Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Private Limited, having its registered office at SCO No.139-141, Sector 17C, First Floor, Chandigarh.
4. Greater Mohali Area Development Authority through Chief Administrator/Administrator, PUDA Bhawan, Sector-62, SAS  Nagar, Punjab

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate for complainants
	:	Sh. Nitesh Singhi, Advocate for OPs No. 1 to 3(through VC)
	:	Sh. Ishtneet Bhatia, Advocate for OP No.4

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. By this order, we propose to dispose of the captioned consumer complaints in which common questions of law and fact are involved.
2.         The facts, for convenience, have been culled out from Consumer Complaint No 13 of 2023 titled as Sanjay Kaushish Versus M/s Manohar Infrastructure &  Construction Private Ltd & Ors.   

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that on 27.02.2011, the complainants on the allurement of OPs booked a residential plot measuring 300 sq. yards @ ₹18,500/- per sq. yard in their project ‘Palm Springs’ being developed by the OPs in Mullanpur (New Chandigarh), District SAS Nagar, Mohali (hereinafter referred to as “subject plot”). The complainant was assured that the possession of the subject plot would be handed over within two years as most of the approvals and sanctions had already been received. The complainant submitted application (Annexure C-1) to the OPs and paid booking amount of ₹16,20,000/-, being 30% of the total sale consideration i.e. ₹54.00 lacs, and the OPs acknowledged the said amount by putting stamp on application form (Annexure C-1) itself on 27.2.2011.  It was also agreed that the total sale consideration excludes EDC and PLC (if any). A copy of payment plan is Annexure C-2.. Thereafter, the complainant visited the office of the OPs in the month of May 2014 for getting the allotment letter but  it was disclosed to complainant by OP No.2 that  the CLU for the project land has been received recently and handed over only a letter/pamphlet Annexure C-3 in which it was mentioned that allotment shall be made in December 2014 but the OPs failed to issue any allotment letter  to the complainant by December 2014 rather started asking more money from the complainant for allotment letter.  Since as per the payment plan the next   instalment was due on issuance of plot number and moreover there was no development at the site and even no allotment letter was issued to the complainant, no further payment was paid to the OPs by the complainant.  The  same position continued till 2017 as the OPs neither issued allotment letter nor executed agreement rather continued to demand money from the complainant even after receiving 30% of the sale consideration.  Thereafter the complainant and his family friend Diljit Pal Singh visited many time to the OPs  in March 2018, March 2020 and in November 2022 specifically after coming from USA to India to get the allotment letter, and, he could not visit the OPs  in 2021 due to COVID 19 to get the allotment letter but with no result.   On 10.11.2022 the complainant was informed by the OPs that his application has been cancelled and cancellation was sent to his Indian address in February 2022. Copy of cancellation letter is annexed as Annexure C-4.. A copy of cancellation letter dated 14.02.2022 is attached as Annexure C-4. It is alleged that the said cancellation is illegal and not binding upon the complainant. It is the opposite parties who did not issue any allotment letter to the complainant. The opposite parties cancelled the expression of interest after using the money of the complainant for more than 10 years. On the receiving the said cancellation on 10.11.2022, the complainant again requested the representative of opposite party No.1 to issue the allotment letter and execute the agreement but they did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. As per the payment plan, the next instalment was due on allotment of plot number. When enquired from the project site, the complainant also came to know that the opposite parties had not even applied the necessary permissions in the year 2011 when the booking amount was collected from him. But at the time of booking the opposite parties had informed him that they had received most of the approvals and sanctions and the layout plan would be approved within 3-4 month. The complainant has no knowledge of letters, the reference of which has been given by the opposite parties in the said cancellation letter. It is further alleged that the OPs had not sought permissions/sanctions from the competent authorities before booking/selling the subject plot to the complainant. The OPs were not competent to sell/book the subject plot without obtaining any license or till an exemption is granted under Section 44 of the PAPRA Act.  Thus the OPs had collected the amount from complainant and other perspective buyers for the booking/selling of the plot  including subject plot (in all the aforesaid captioned complaint) without a single approval from the competent authorities. In this manner the OPs have also violated Section of Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act 1995 which makes incumbent upon the OPs to execute buyer agreement on accepting the application.  Thus the aforesaid act of OPs amounts to unfair trade practice by not offering buyer’s agreement in a reasonable time and even  till date despite of this fact the OPs have already accepted 30% of the sale consideration from the complainant and despite of assurance of OPs at the time of booking the subject plot that possession shall be handed over within two years  but till date no offer has been made to hand over the possession of the subject plot.   In this manner, the aforesaid acts of the OPs clearly amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, concealment of facts, limitation and also that the complainants are not covered under the definition of consumer.  It is further alleged that, in fact, the complainant was informed about the project approval and issuance of CLU in favour of the answering OPs and also about the status of the project at the time of expression of interest was executed. The competent authority had granted completion period till 13.6.2018 towards the project of the OPs, which was later on extended upto 31.7.2019 and it was for the complainant to come forward to execute the plot buyer’s agreement and comply with the terms and conditions. Even otherwise also, without prejudice to the defence of the OPs which was taken, no prejudice would be caused to the complainant if at the initial stage OP company was not having permission from the competent authority since a valid title could have been transferred in the name of the complainant after the allotment of the plot.  The OP company had also submitted application for extension of the completion of the project as some part of the mega project was yet to be completed whereas the major portion of the project has already been completed and the competent authority had granted extension regarding completion of the project upto 31.7.2019, which was later on extended upto 31.12.2022. The OP company had acquired land for the mega project and in this manner has been exempted from the provisions of the PAPRA, regarding which notification has already been issued on 25.1.2017.  The OP company had submitted application for the mega housing project as it was the owner of more than 100 acres of land and the fixed capital investment was also more than 100 crores and the project was later on sanctioned.  However, the project of the OP company was approved on 22.3.2013 by the Govt. of Punjab and thereafter formal agreement was signed and executed with the Govt. on 14.6.2013 and after the addition of more land, the mega project for the total area of 234.37 acres with an investment of ₹845 crores was sanctioned and the competent authority had also granted the completion period for the entire project upto 13.6.2018.  In this manner, the case of the OPs was under process and there was some procedural delay on the part of the Govt. in issuing the notification in this regard and the delay in completion of the project was only due to the considerable delay in approval by the Govt. for which the answering OPs are not responsible.  It is further alleged that the OP company has already allotted plots to the number of customers who have deposited amount as per the schedule and in this manner the complainants have no locus standi or cause of action to file the present consumer complaint.  On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainants is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. In rejoinder, complainants re-asserted the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

3. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant had paid an amount of ₹16,20,000/- (Rs.16,47,000 in other above captioned connected complaints.) to the OPs for booking of the subject plot in the project of the OPs namely Palm Springs (Palm Garden in other above captioned connected complaints ), measuring 300 sq. yards @ ₹18,000/- per sq. yard, being 30% of the total cost of the same, and the said payment has been acknowledged by the OPs vide Expression of Interest letter dated 27.2.2011 (Annexure C-1) and in this manner the complainant had paid total amount of Rs.16,20,000/- i.e. 30% of the total cost of the subject plot i.e. ₹54,00,000/- (54,90,000/- in other above captioned connected complaints) and, till date, OPs have failed to execute either any agreement or issue allotment letter to the complainants and even illegally cancelled the application of the complainant in the instant complaint vide Annexure C-4 dated 14.2.2022, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the OPs have received the aforesaid huge amount from the complainant and had agreed to sell the subject plot without having any approval from the competent authorities as required under law and have also failed to execute the  agreement or issue allotment letter or deliver possession of the subject plot to the complainant, till date, and the said act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part and the complainants are entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainants, or if due to non-payment of the total sale consideration by the complainant to the OPs as well as due to force majeure circumstances, OPs have not issued any allotment letter and the consumer complaint of complainant, being not maintainable, is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the OPs.
   2. The learned counsel for the complainant  contended with vehemence that as it stands proved on record that the OPs had received huge amount from the complainant in the above captioned complaints without obtaining necessary approval from competent authorities and till date failed to deliver possession of the subject plot till date. Not only this, complainant had only agreed to pay EDC and PLC charges, in addition to total sale consideration, to the OPs vide Annexure C-1 & C-2 and it was never agreed upon by the complainants that they will also pay IDC charges, but later on  the OPs  illegally demanded IDC charges from the complainants and the OPs are not entitled for the same. Even the OPs have wrongly cancelled the application of complainant in the instant complaint.
   3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs contended with vehemence that as Annexure C-1 & C-2 are not the  agreements executed by the OPs in favour of the complainant, the said demand of IDC being payable by the complainants was rightly raised by the OPs from the complainants.
   4. However, there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the OPs as, at the time of booking of the subject plot while receiving an amount of ₹16,20,000/- (Rs.16,47,000 in other above captioned connected complaints.) from the complainant, OPs had given a note in the Expression of Interest (Annexure C-1) that –

“EDC and PLC charges will be in addition to the rates quoted.  There shall be additional cost for maintenance etc.”

              making further clear that there was no reference of IDC in the said expression of interest letter.  Moreover, even in the payment plan (Annexure C-2), no reference of IDC has been given, making clear that IDC was not asked by the OPs at the time of receiving an amount of ₹16,20,000/- (Rs.16,47,000 in other above captioned connected complaints.) being 30% of the total sale consideration of the subject plot and issuing expression of interest letter with payment plan.  The demand of IDC was raised by the OPs later on.  

5. A similar question fell for consideration before the Hon’ble National Commission as to whether any charges, which have been subsequently incorporated in a new document, are payable by the allottee in case titled as Jaipuria Sunrise Greens Residents Welfare Association Vs. Jaipuria Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd., Consumer Case No.38 of 2007 decided on 30.8.2018, in which it was held that where any charges have been incorporated subsequently in a new document, same are not payable by the consumer/allottee.  Thus, it is safe to hold that the aforesaid IDC claimed by the OPs from the complainant is illegal and the same is not payable by the complainants.
6. Apart from the above objection, various other stereo typed objections have also been taken by the OPs, which have already been taken and dealt with by this Commission as well as by the Hon’ble State Commission in the past in respect of same project i.e. Palm Garden.
7. It is an admitted case of the parties that when the project was advertised and sold in the year 2011, OPs were not even registered with the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA), SAS Nagar, Mohali as a qualified project proponent to obtain licence under Section 5 of the PAPRA.  Not only this, even the certificate of registration was also granted by the GMADA in the year 2014, permitting the OPs to set up a colony subject to their obtaining requisite licences as mandated under the provisions of PAPRA. This factum of obtaining various approvals by the OPs from the various competent authorities has been given in detail by the complainants in tabulated form in Annexure C-5, which has not even been disputed by the learned counsel for the OPs at the time of arguments and the same is extracted below for ready reference :-

S. No.	Subject	Date of application/ request	Date of approval/ issue
	Application for Mega project	12.09.2011
	Subsequent application for Mega Project	17.01.2013
	Proposal considered by Screening Committee		21.02.2013
	Project approved by Govt.		25.04.2013
	Letter of intent issued subject to certain conditions		03.05.2013
	Agreement with Government subject to certain conditions		14.06.2013
	Application for Registration as Promoter	11.07.2013	27.06.2014
	CLU for 112.04 acres	20.09.2013	31.03.2014
	NOC from Forest Department	14.07.2014	14.07.2014
	Supplementary Agreement entered on 12.12.2014.		12.12.2014
	CLU for additional 19.51 acres	16.12.2014	25.03.2015
	Layout Plan	18.05.2015	06.10.2015
	Zoning Plan	28.10.2015	24.11.2015
	Permission for solid Waste Mgt, Sewage and Storm Water Disposal	02.07.2015	06.07.2015
	Approval of DPR		27.11.2015
	Grant of consent to establish (NOC) Water & Air by Punjab Pollution Control Board		01.12.2015
	Permission for construction of houses	11.01.2016	18.01.2016
	NOC from pollution Angle by Punjab Pollution Control Board		15.02.2016
	Environmental Clearance		03.06.2016
	Supplementary Agreement		16.06.2016
	Approval of Crust design of roads		14.09.2016
	Notification for exemption u/s 44 of PAPRA		25.01.2017

8. In view of this, the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that the project in question was sold without any permission(s)/sanction(s) from the competent authorities and also by violating the provisions of section 4(1)(a)&(b) and 6 of PAPRA appears to be correct, especially as it is clear from the afore-extracted table that the application for mega project was moved by the OPs on 12.9.2011 only with subsequent application for mega project on 17.1.2013 and the project was only approved by the Govt. on 25.4.2013 and the Letter of Intent was issued subject to certain conditions imposed by the competent authority on 3.5.2013, making further clear that even before receiving the huge amount of ₹16,20,000/- (Rs.16,47,000 in other connected above captioned complaints.) and at the time of issuing Expression of Interest (Annexure C-1), the project of the OPs was not registered with GMADA and even licence under Section 5 of the PAPRA was not issued to the OPs, especially when it has come on record that the certificate of registration was issued by the GMADA only on 27.6.2014.
9. Moreover, the letter of intent (Annexure C-6) had made mandatory for the promoters to fulfil certain formalities before advertising/launching the project and also to obtain certain approvals from the department, which have not been completed by the OPs in the present case. The relevant conditions are reproduced below for ready reference :-

“3(v)        The project shall not be advertised/launched and no money will be collected from General Public for allotment of land/plot/flat/any space till such time the layout plans/zoning plans are approved by the Competent authority and the exemption u/s 44 of the PAPR Act 1995 is issued by the State Govt.

        xxx                   xxx                   xxx

6.     This LOI is only a letter of intent issued by Punjab Urban planning & Development Authority in its capacity as Nodal Agency and does not confer any right to the Promoter/ Developer to sell/transfer the property or execute any transactions with anyone without obtaining valid approvals and requisite notification/order under Section 44 of PAPR Act, 1995, to be issued by the Department of Housing & Urban Development.”

10. Thus, one thing is further clear from the conditions laid down in the letter of intent that none of the same has been completed by the OPs before accepting 30% of the sale consideration from the complainant and booking the subject plot.
11. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the OPs contended with vehemence that the issuance of notification dated 25.1.2017 by the Govt. granting exemption from applicability of many provisions of PAPRA qua the mega project in question will relate back to the year 2011, when application was filed to get licence under the mega housing policy and the said notification ratifies all the mistakes/ irregularities committed  by the OPs qua the sale of plots in the year 2011 without obtaining necessary sanctions and approvals from the competent authority. However, there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the OPs as the pleadings of the parties indicate that when the project was marketed and sold by the OPs, not even a single permission was available with the project proponent/OPs and there is complete violation of the provisions of PAPRA.  It was also so said by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case titled as Atul Maheshwari and Ors. Vs. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority, II (2016) CPJ 623 (NC) and the relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under :-

“OP should not have announced the scheme, until or unless they got clear title of the acquired land”.

12. It has thus been proved on record that money had been collected by the OPs from the prospective buyers including the complainants, without obtaining statutory approvals/clearances. Collecting money from the prospective buyers and selling the plots/units in the project, without obtaining the required approvals/ clearances/amended clearance is an unfair trade practice on the part of the project proponent. It was so said by the Hon’ble National Commission, in a case titled as M/s Ittina Properties Pvt. Ltd. & 3 Ors. Vs. Vidya Raghupathi & Anr., First Appeal No. 1787 of 2016, decided on 31.5.2018 and the relevant portion of the order reads as under:-

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

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

13. In the present case also, there is nothing on record that when expression of interest/applications were invited to sell the said project, clear intimation was given to the intending purchasers that the project sold was in infancy stage and it will take years together before necessary permissions will be provided by the Competent Authorities.
14. The learned counsel for the OPs further contended with vehemence that the application to get the mega project approved was filed in the year 2011 and the delay has occurred on account of the laxity on the part of the bureaucrats/competent authorities in granting permission/approvals.  However, such a plea has been taken by the OPs just to raise it without any material on record.  Moreover, as it has already been discussed above that the OPs in complete violation of the provisions of PAPRA have launched the project, without seeking permission and collected huge amount from the complainants, which they could not have collected or advertised the project for sale, especially when they were not registered with GMADA even at that time, the aforesaid plea taken by the OPs is without merit.
15. Learned counsel for the OPs further contended with vehemence that as the complainants have not paid the remaining further installments as per the payment plan, despite of repeated requests by the OPs, and the complainants have committed default in the payment, they are not entitled for possession or compensation.  However, the principle of law was laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court qua the payments to be made by the allottees in installments in the case of Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Mrs. Raj Mehta, Appeal (Civil) 5882 of 2002, decided on 24.09.2004 wherein it was held that if the builder is at fault in not delivering possession of the units/plots by the stipulated date or within a reasonable period where no agreement is executed, it cannot expect the allottee(s) to go on paying installments to it. Similar view had also been taken by the Hon’ble National Commission, in Prasad Homes Private Limited Vs. E.Mahender Reddy and Ors., 1 (2009) CPJ 136 (NC), wherein it was held that when development work was not carried out at the site, payment of further installments was rightly stopped by the purchaser.   Accordingly, the aforesaid plea taken by the OPs in this regard stands rejected.
16. The consumer complaint is further resisted by the OPs on the ground that the same is beyond the limitation period.  However, when it is an admitted case of the parties that the possession of the subject plot has not been offered and also that the OPs are still not ready with possession even at the time of filing of the instant consumer complaint or till date, as such the objection taken with regard to limitation is not sustainable in view of the principle of law laid down in Lata Construction & Ors. Vs. Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal   Shah and Anr., AIR 1999 SC 380 and Meerut Development Authority Vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, IV (2012) CPJ 12 (SC), wherein it was held that when possession of the residential units/plots is not offered, there is a continuing cause of action, in favour of the allottee/buyer.
17. Now the question arises, as to what amount of compensation, the complainants are entitled to, for delay in delivery of possession of the plot to them and for which period? Admittedly, in the present as also in other above captioned connected  case, agreement has not been executed by the OPs, which act has been held to be an unfair trade practice on their part. Thus, in the absence of a specific date of delivery of possession in any of the documents, placed on record, we are of the considered opinion that we cannot make the complainants to wait for an indefinite period in the matter. Thus, if we take a reasonable period of three years from the date of booking of the plot i.e. from 27.2.2011 ( from 1.11.2011 in other above captioned connected complaints), as period of completion of development works at the project site and delivery of possession of the plot in question to the complainant, which comes to 27.2.2014 (1.11.2014 in other above captioned connected complaints), in view of principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Fortune Infrastructure Vs. Trevor D’ Lima & Ors. (2018) 5 SCC 442, relevant part whereof is reproduced hereunder, that will meet the ends of justice:-

“…… Moreover, a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the flats allotted to them and they are entitled to seek the refund of the amount paid by them, along with compensation. Although we are aware of the fact that when there was no delivery period stipulated in the agreement, a reasonable time has to be taken into consideration. In the facts and circumstances of this case, a time period of 3 years would have been reasonable for completion of the contract…”

18. In this view of the matter,  it is held that the complainant is entitled to get compensation for the period of delay, by way of interest, starting from 27.2.2014 till possession is delivered to them, complete in all respects.
19. So far as the cancellation of application for booking of the subject plot in CC/13/2023 captioned above by the OPs vide letter Annexure C-4 is concerned, the same is illegal and arbitrary as the OPs have collected huge amount from the complainant without issuing any allotment letter showing therein any plot allotted to the complainant and even without any plot buyer agreement executed with regard to the same.  Hence once OPs have not allotted any plot to the complainant vide any allotment letter but continued to demand money from him,  the rejection of booking application of complainant by the OPs after retaining  his hard earned money for so long period, is illegal and arbitrary  and the same is held to be invalid. Accordingly the same is quashed/set aside.
20. Now we will deal with the question, as to what rate of compensation is required to be awarded to the complainants for the period of delay? No doubt, the OPs have placed reliance on Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleya Sultana and Ors Vs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 6239 of 2019, decided on 24.08.2020, to say that since in these cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has awarded interest @6% p.a., as such, this Commission cannot grant interest beyond that, in the present case also. We do not agree with the contention raised for the reasons recorded hereinafter. It may be stated here that we have gone through the contents of Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleya Sultana and Ors. case (supra), and found that, for delay in offering possession of the units therein, over and above the interest rate of 6% p.a., the penalty amount as contained in the agreement has also been ordered to be paid to the complainants by the builder. Since, in the present case, agreement has not been executed by the OPs, as such, if we award lump sum interest @9% p.a.  as compensation to be paid by the OPs to the complainants, on the amounts deposited, for the period of delay in delivery of possession, that will meet the ends of justice.

5. In view of the above discussion, both the consumer complaints deserve to succeed and the same are accordingly partly allowed. OPs No. 1 to 3 are directed as under :-

RELIEF IN CC/13/2023

1. To deliver actual physical possession of the subject plot to the complainant, complete in all respects i.e. after providing all the basic amenities, referred to above, and execute the sale deed, on receipt of balance sale consideration, EDC, PLC (if the subject plot is preferentially located) and also Govt. taxes as applicable, from the complainant. It is also made clear that the OPs are not entitled to charge IDC from the complainants, as there is no document on record to prove that the same was payable by the complainant.
2. To pay delayed compensation to the complainant in the form of simple interest @ 9% per annum on the entire deposited amount w.e.f. the committed date of possession i.e. 27.2.2014 till the date of actual physical possession of the subject plot in all respects.
3. To pay ₹50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to them and also deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice;
4. To pay ₹10,000/- to the complainants as costs of litigation.

RELIEF IN CC/146/2023

1. To deliver actual physical possession of the subject plot to the complainants, complete in all respects i.e. after providing all the basic amenities, referred to above, and execute the sale deed, on receipt of balance sale consideration, EDC, PLC (if the subject plot is preferentially located) and also Govt. taxes as applicable, from the complainant. It is also made clear that the OPs are not entitled to charge IDC from the complainants, as there is no document on record to prove that the same was payable by the complainant.
2. To pay delayed compensation to the complainants in the form of simple interest @ 9% per annum on the entire deposited amount w.e.f. the committed date of possession i.e. 1.11.2014 till the date of actual physical possession of the subject plot in all respects.
3. To pay ₹50,000/- to the complainants as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to them and also deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice;
4. To pay ₹10,000/- to the complainants as costs of litigation.

RELIEF IN CC/149/2023

1. To deliver actual physical possession of the subject plot to the complainants, complete in all respects i.e. after providing all the basic amenities, referred to above, and execute the sale deed, on receipt of balance sale consideration, EDC, PLC (if the subject plot is preferentially located) and also Govt. taxes as applicable, from the complainant. It is also made clear that the OPs are not entitled to charge IDC from the complainants, as there is no document on record to prove that the same was payable by the complainant.
2. To pay delayed compensation to the complainants in the form of simple interest @ 9% per annum on the entire deposited amount w.e.f. the committed date of possession i.e. 1.11.2014 till the date of actual physical possession of the subject plot in all respects.
3. To pay ₹50,000/- to the complainants as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to them and also deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice;
4. To pay ₹10,000/- to the complainants as costs of litigation.

6. This order be complied with by the OPs No.1 to 3 within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No.(ii) & (iii) in each case above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, instead of 9% [mentioned at Sr.No.(ii) in each case above], till realisation, over and above compliance of directions NO.(i)&(iv) in each case above
7. Complaint qua OP No.4 (in other captioned connected complaints) stands dismissed.
8. A certified copy of this order be also placed on the file of other  connected consumer complaint, mentioned above, which shall form part and parcel of the that file.
9. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
10. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 4/11/2024		- [Pawanjit Singh] President
mp
		[Surjeet Kaur] Member
		- [Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member