1.      Heard Mr. Danish Zubair Khan, Advocate for the complainant and Mr. Prabhakar Tiwari, Advocate for the opposite party.

2.      P.P. Social Welfare Society has filed above complaint for directing M/s. Parsvnath Developers Limited (i) to refund entire deposit made by the home buyers along with interest @24% per annum from the date of respective deposit till the date of actual realization; (ii) to pay Rs.250000/- to each of the complainants, as compensation for unfair trade practice and deceptive method adopted against the buyers; (iii) to pay Rs.500000/- to each of the complainants as compensation for mental harassment and agony; (iv) to pay Rs.50000/- as cost of litigation; and (v) any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper be awarded to the complainant.

3.      Initially this complaint was filed for the benefit of 11 sets of flat buyers. Later on, Poornima Saxena, Kushagra Agarwal and Shweta Agarwal, Rita Singh, Vinay Pratap Singh and Mr. Rohan Kumar, K.J.Khan, Rakesh Dhamania and Suman Dhamania, Praveen Kumar, Gurdev Singh and Narinder Kaur, Kulpreet Singh and Sandeep Verma and Barkha Srivastava filed IA/9032/2021 for withdrawing the complaint on their behalf as they have settled their dispute with the opposite party. This Commission by order dated 26.11.2021 allowed IA/9032/2021. Now the complaint remained on behalf of Ratan Lal Gurnani, Mohit Gurnani & Rekhat Sadhwani, Sanjay Vats & Sonia Vats, Deep Chand Jain & Suman Jain and Rajiv Bhatia.

4.      The complainant stated that M/s. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. (the opposite party) was a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of development and construction of residential and commercial building and selling its unit to the prospective buyers. The opposite party launched a project in the name of “Parsvnath Privilege” at Plot No.11, Sector-PI, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh in the year 2006 and made wide publicity of the project. Allure with the advertisement given by the opposite party following home buyer, on whose behalf the complainant was filed, booked flat in the year 2007 to 2013 and deposited total amount, time to time:

5.      Rajendra Kumar Arora, Poonam Arora, Sandeev Verma, Barkha Srivastava, Kulpreet Singh filed IA/2274/2017, for their impleadment as the complainants, in the list of the complainant, which was allowed vide order dated 09.03.2018 and these persons were impleaded in the list of complainants.

6.      The complainants stated that the allotments were made in the year 2007 and 2008 to the most of the home buyers and Flat Buyers Agreement were executed in their favour shortly after allotment. As per Clause 10 (a) of Flat Buyers Agreement, the opposite party assured to complete the construction within a period of 36 months from the date of commencement of the construction, but they have failed to complete the construction although the homer buyers have deposited more than 72% to 97% of sale consideration with the opposite party.  On physical verification of the construction on the site, it was not likely to be completed in the near future as such the complaint was filed for aforementioned reliefs on 16.05.2016 alleging deficiency in service.

7.      The opposite party filed written reply on 14.09.2016, in which, material facts have not been disputed. The opposite party stated that they had completed structure of Tower T-15, T-17 & T-18. The internal and external plaster work also completed and offer of possession is likely to be made in December, 2016. Internal plaster work of Tower -12 & T-14 were in progress. As far as the construction of Tower-5 is concerned, the construction work of roof slab of 11^th floor was completed. The opposite party is making effort to complete the construction. The construction with full swing was going on. The Real Estate sector is facing with the problem of (i) lack of adequate sources of finance; (ii) shortage of labour; (iii) Rising manpower and material costs; (iv) inordinate delay in approvals from the statutory authorities relating to various requirements. In addition to the aforesaid factors (i) recession in economy also resulted in availability of labour and raw materials becoming scarce; (ii) as national beneficial scheme like Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme and Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission were going on. (iii) shortage of labour due to national scheme; (iv) extreme shortage of water in NCR region for construction of work; (v) shortage of bricks due to restriction imposed by Ministry of Environment and Forest on bricks kilns. The effect of global economy slowdown also affected the Real Estate sectors. FDI inflow into Real Estate has been dropped significantly and emerged as one of the most prominent markets of foreign investments is experiencing a downturn. These problems are being faced by the developers due to which the construction work is being delayed. Under Clause 10 (c) of Flat Buyers Agreement, it was agreed between the parties for giving delayed compensation @Rs.5/- sq.ft. per month on super area as such the interest on Flat Buyers were fully secured. The complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hand. It has been denied that the terms and conditions of Flat Buyers Agreement was one sided, unfair and arbitrary. It is stated that all the buyers have signed agreement after fully understanding its various clauses. The cases of all the allottees on whose behalf the complaint was filed are different. Inasmuch as date of allotment and due date of possession was different in the cases of all the allottees. Some of the allottees have not paid the instalment on due date according to the terms and conditions of the Flat Buyers Agreement. The complaint has been mala fide filed.  Inasmuch as the complainants have invested the money in Real Estate in the hope appreciation of price. However, from 2016 the expected appreciation in Real Estate is not found as such the allottees now want refund of their money contrary to the terms and agreement.

8.      The complainant filed rejoinder reply on 09.03.2017, in which, the facts stated in the complaint were reiterated. The complainant filed Affidavit of Evidence of Rakesh Dhamani, Ratan Lal Gurnani, Kushagra Agarwal, Sweta Agarwal and others and B.P.Singh, Sanjay Vats, Deep Chand Jain and K.J.,Khan, Perveen Kumar, Rajender Kumar Arora and Kulpreet Singh and documentary evidence. 

9.      I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record.  Under Clause 10(a) of the Flat Buyers Agreement, possession has to be delivered within 36 months from the date of commencement of construction. 36 months was completed in June, 2010, however, the possession has not been delivered nor it is ready till today. Occupation Certificate has not been obtained till today as such the home buyers are entitled for refund of their money. Supreme Court in Fortune Infrastructure Vs. Trevor D’Lima, (2018) 5 SCC 442, Kotkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Devasis Rudra, 2019 (6) SCALE 462, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrstructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raghavan, (2019) 5 SCC 725 and Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan Vs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd.,(2020) 16 SCC 512, held that home buyer cannot be made to wait for unlimited period.

10.    The counsel for the complainant relied upon the judgment of this Commission passed in Consumer Complaint No.1229 of 2015, Poonam Vasisht Vs. Parsvnath Developers Limited, decided on 11.04.2022, in which, relying upon judgment of this Commission, in Consumer Complaint No.200 of 2011, Abhishek Kumar Vs. Parsvnath Developers Limited, decided on 05.05.2014, interest @18% per annum has been directed to be paid on refund of the amount. He submitted that above cases relate to the same project as such the complainants were also entitled for same interest.

11.    It may be mentioned that the judgment which has effect of res judicata and judgment in rem are only relevant in subsequent proceeding. The judgments relied upon by the counsel for the complainants have no effect of res judicata nor judgment in rem. The judgment of this Commission in previous matter can be looked as a ratio decidendi.  So far as ratio decidendi is concerned, the judgment of this Commission will have no overriding effect over the judgment of Supreme Court. Supreme Court in Fortune Infrastructure Vs. Trevor D’ Lima, (2018) 5 SCC 442, Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Devasis Rudra, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 438 & Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abhishek Khanna, (2021) 3 SCC 241, held that in the cases of refund, interest @9% per annum would be appropriate compensation, as such, in view of the judgments of Supreme Court the judgments of this Commission relied upon by the counsel for complainant are no more good law.

                                            ORDER

          In the result, the complaint succeeds and is allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund entire money of the surviving allottees, for whose benefits this complaint has been filed, along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of respective deposit till the date of payment, within a period of two months from the date of this judgement.