JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) Aggrieved by the order dated 18.11.08 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in complaint cases No. C-13 & 14/05 the opposite party, DLF ..2.. Commercial Developers Ltd. has filed these appeals. By the impugned order, the State Commission has partly allowed the complaints filed by the respondent/complainant alleging deficiency in service on the parts of the opposite parties in not handing over the possession of certain commercial spaces which were built in a complex at Gurgaon despite the complainant having deposited the substantial amount of consideration with the opposite party developer. The State Commission directed to the builder/developer to refund 50% of the deducted earnest money (deposited amount minus 10% earnest money have already been refunded) with the stipulation that on doing so the property shall stand cancelled in the name of the complainant and the complainant shall have no right to the said property. 2. We have heard Mr. Rajan Narain, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel representing the respondent/complainant and have given our thoughtful consideration to their respective submissions. 3. The facts of the case have been amply noted by the State Commission in the impugned order and need no repetition. It would appear that after making the payment of Rs.29,94,267/- in six installments in both these cases ..3.. towards the purchase of some commercial spaces, the complainant had failed to deposit the balance installments purportedly on the ground that there was no progress in the construction and the builder had not obtained the requisite sanctions from the concerned authorities. It would appear that despite the concession granted to the complainant and pursuant to the certain settlement the rate of interest was reduced from 24% to 15% and then from 15% to 12%, still the complainant failed to pay the balance installments and consequently, the agreement to sell of the commercial spaces was cancelled. From the record, it would also appear that during the pendency of the complaints, the builder refunded the entire deposited amount to the complainant minus 10% of the earnest money which according to them they were entitled to deduct besides many other charges. In these circumstances, the only question left before the State Commission was as to whether the complainant was entitled to any further relief despite she having failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell and make payment of the balance consideration. Mr. Narain, learned counsel for the appellants submits that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the appellant builder could have deducted much larger sums from the deposited amount on several counts but as a goodwill ..4.. gesture they have restricted the deductions only to the 10% viz. the earnest money. He submits that there was no further scope for the State Commission for reducing that amount to the extent of 50% of the earnest money. We find force in this submission because the parties are governed by the terms and conditions of the agreement and once it was proved that there was breach of agreement, the terms and conditions of the agreement should take their effect. In fact they would entitle the builder to deduct much more amount on several counts than the forfeiture of the earnest money. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant/respondent submits that the order of the State Commission is just and reasonable as the complainant has suffered firstly due to not getting the possession of the commercial spaces booked by her and then by losing the part of the amount deposited by her and, besides she has also been deprived of the interest on the deposited amount for the period the amount remained with the builder. On this submission, we may simply observe that the parties must suffer the consequences of breach of terms and conditions of the agreement. In our opinion, the builder has done nothing wrong in cancelling the agreement due to the default of the complainant in making the payment of ..5.. the installments within the stipulated period or even belatedly despite the settlement reached between the parties. We are of the considered view that the complainant was not entitled to any relief in the matter. 4. In the result, the appeals are allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside. During the pendency of the appeals, we directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- each in these two appeals with this Commission which direction has been complied with. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and in the interest of justice, we direct that the appellant builder shall not seek refund of the said amount and the amount shall be disbursed to the respondent/complainant along with interest accrued thereon. With these observations, both the appeals stand disposed of.