1.      These sixteen (16) Revision Petitions have been filed under Section 58(1)(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 in challenge to the Order dated 09.11.2020 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka (the ‘State Commission’) in F.A.s No. 653 to 668 of 2019, arising out of the Order dated 20.07.2018 in C.C.s No. 1246/2016, No. 1274/2016, No. 1262/2016, No. 1598/2016, No. 1267/2016, No. 1271/2016, No. 1260/2016, No. 1596/2016, No. 1261/2016, No. 1263/2016, No. 1259/2016, No. 1595/2016, No. 1247/2016, No. 1597/2016, No. 1265/2016 and No. 1273 of 2016 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (the ‘District Commission’).

2.      Heard arguments on admission from Mr. Aditya Kapoor, learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

Perused the material on record, including inter alia the Order dated 20.07.2018 of the District Commission, the Order dated 09.11.2020 of the State Commission and the Petition.

3.      These sixteen (16) Petitions have been filed against a common order (the Order dated 09.11.2020) of the State Commission, similar facts and same questions of law are involved.

The sixteen (16) Petitions are being disposed of vide the instant common order.

4.      The District Commission vide its Order dated 20.07.2018 partly allowed the Complaints against the Opposite Party No. 1, M/s Balaji Builders and Developers, the Petitioner herein (the ‘Builder’).

It ordered the Builder to refund the respective amounts deposited by the Complainants, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, and to pay Rs. 25,000/- each towards damages and Rs. 10,000/- each towards cost of litigation.

5.      The State Commission vide its Order dated 09.11.2020 dismissed the Appeals.

6.      That the Complainants in fact had made their respective deposits with the Builder, that the deposits were made in the years 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015, that the construction has been delayed beyond the agreed and assured period, that in 2018, when the District Commission made its Order, the agreed and assured period for completing construction had elapsed but the construction had not been completed, that in 2020, when the State Commission made its Order, the construction had not been completed, are all established facts.

7.      Learned Counsel for the Builder submits that in 2021 (on 23.03.2021), when the Petitions are being heard on admission, the construction has still not been completed.

The argument that the Builder will be completing the construction “shortly” is totally untenable. A builder cannot retain the amount deposited by a consumer indefinitely or unreasonably, indefinite or unreasonable holding of the amount deposited by a consumer cannot continue ad nauseam, ad infinitum.

8.      It is seen that the State Commission has passed a well-apprised reasoned Order. It has concurred with the District Commission. No palpable misappreciation of evidence is visible. No jurisdictional error, or legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice, is visible. In the facts and situation of the matter, the Award made by the District Commission, as upheld by the State Commission, appears just and equitable. No reason to interference with the impugned Order of the State Commission is forthcoming.

9.      The Revision Petitions, being totally ill-conceived and completely bereft of merit, are dismissed.

10.    The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the Respondents Complainants within three days.

11.    The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission today itself.