(Pronounced on 23^rdday of December, 2019)

R.K. AGRAWAL, J. PRESIDENT

Delay condoned.

2.       These four Appeals, preferred by the BPTP Limited (For short, “the Developer”), under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), arise out of Orders all dated 15.05.2019, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short “the State Commission”) in Consumer Case Nos. 456, 457, 458 and 487 of 2013.By the impugned orders, while partly allowing the Complaints filed by the Complainants/Respondents herein, the State Commission has directed the Appellant to refund the amount deposited by them along with compensation in the form of interest varying from @ 10 to 12% p.a. from the date of each deposit till realization. Besides, the Developer has also been directed to pay ₹50,000/- to each of the Complainants towards cost of litigation.

3.    As a common issue is involved in all these Appeals and even the background facts are identical, they are being disposed of by a common order. However, in order to appreciate the controversy involved and rival stands therein, we shall briefly refer to the facts of First Appeal No. 1516 of 2019 which as culled out in the Complaint, are as under:-

4.       Swayed with various published materials, brochures, publicity materials and the lucrative representations promising a Project with the provisions of 100% Power Backup, Club Facility, Swimming Pool, Fire Fighting installations, Round the Clock Security etc., the Complainant who was looking for a residential flat within his budget, on 01.08.2008 booked a Flat admeasuring 1414 Square Feet in a Residential Project, namely, M/s. BPTP Park Floor I, to be developed by the Developer in Sector 77, Faridabad, by paying a sum of ₹2,50,000/-. Subsequent to booking amount, on payment of a further sum of ₹2,50,000/- by the Complainant, a Flat bearing No. G-001, Tower R was allotted to him by the Developer vide Allotment Letter dated 16.09.2009. The Flat Buyer’s Agreement (for short, “the Agreement”) was also executed between the parties on 16.09.2009. It was a construction linked plan. The Basic Sale Value of the flat was ₹27,44,574/-. The Complainant had also availed of Home Loan from LIC Housing Finance Ltd. and a Tripartite Agreement was executed between the parties on 13.11.2009.

5.       It is stated that though the Buildings Plans of the Project got approved by the Developer only on 10.11.2009 but they demanded and collected the huge sum of money from the Complainant before the said date on the false ground that the construction was in full swing. It is further stated that the LIC Housing Finance Ltd. did not disburse any money against the sanctioned loan in the absence of the approved Building Plans and as such the various demands raised by the Developer could not be paid in time. It is alleged that vide e-mail dated 03.05.2010, it was informed by Rajnish Dutt, an employee of the Developer that no interest would be charged by the Developer on the outstanding amount till the disbursal of loan from Financial Institution, however, the interest was charged by the Developer on the default in payment of instalments in time.

6.       It is averred in the Complaint that as per the Clause 2.1 of the Agreement, the Developer was under an obligation to complete construction of the Project and deliver possession of the flat to the Complainant within a span of 36 months from the date of sanctioning of Building Plans, i.e. the possession was to be delivered to the Complainant latest by 09.11.2012.  However, no offer of possession was made by the Developer by the stipulated period. Vide “Demand-Cum-Offer of Possession for Fit Outs” dated 30.05.2013, the Developer offered possession for fit out of the Flat and not the actual habitation of Complainants and their Family Members. Moreover, the said letter was issued by the Developer without obtaining the Completion/Occupancy Certificate from the concerned Authorities only for the purpose to extract more money from the Complainant and also to avoid its liability to pay a penalty for the delayed period of possession in terms of the provisions of the Flat Buyer’s Agreement dated 16.09.2009.  It is stated that even in the “Demand-Cum-Offer of Possession for fit outs” dated 30.05.2013, certain arbitrary and illegal demands were made by the Developer which were neither a part of the payment plan agreed nor were disclosed at the time of the execution of the Agreement. The Developer made an illegal demand of ₹3,65,322/- towards Basic Sales Price, however, the same was payable at the time of offering of physical possession with all approvals including but not limited to Completion/Occupancy Certificate from the concerned Authorities.  Further, the demands of ₹1,43,038/- towards costs escalation and ₹40,000/- for electricity connection charges were wrongly made by the Developer in the letter dated 30.05.2013. It is pleaded that as per the Agreement the Basic Cost was escalation free and as such the Developer cannot be allowed to charge cost escalation. No justification/break-up has been provided by the Developer to charge a sum ₹40,000/- towards electricity charges and a sum of ₹1,00,000/- has also been illegally demanded on account of power back up charges as there was no mention of any such charges in the Payment Plan under the Agreement. It is alleged in the Complaint that the Developer also demanded a sum of ₹2,65,098.50 towards enhanced EDC charges, however, the same were stayed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on filing a Writ Petition by Apartment Owners Association of Greater Faridabad. Complainant, by various verbal and written mails requested the Developer to provide details and justification of the illegal demands raised in “Demand-Cum-Offer of Possession for Fit Outs” but no satisfactory reply was furnished by them.

7.       It is further stated that to the utter shock and surprise of the Complainant, even the Original Super Area of the Flat was increased arbitrarily by the Developer from 1414 Sq. Ft. to 1458 Sq. Ft. in the letter dated 30.05.2013which resulted in an additional costs of ₹85,404/- approx. to be paid by the Complainant. It is averred that the Complainant has come to know from the other Allottees of the Project that the Developer had converted the open/common area of the Project into the Open Car Parking Slots which had to be sold to the various Allottees on payment of one-time costs. The Complainant has also learnt that the Developer has mortgaged the entire Project including his Flat and thus, has created the third party interest on the property without obtaining the NOC from the Bank from which he had availed of home loan.

8.       According to the Complainant, he had paid in total a sum of ₹31,22,912/- i.e. more than 90% of the originally agreed costs of the Flat to the Developer but the Possession has not been handed over to him so far. Complainant has been deprived of the possession of his Flat as well as the use of his money and on the other hand, the Developer has enjoyed the benefits arising out of huge payments made by the Complainant.

9.       Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Developer in not fulfilling its promise to hand over the possession within the stipulated time and Unfair Trade Practice in raising the illegal and arbitrary demands in the “Demand-Cum-Offer of Possession for fit outs” dated 30.05.2013, the Complainant filed a Complaint before the State Commission with a prayer to; (i) set aside the demands raised in the Demand-Cum-Offer of Possession for Fit Outs letter dated 30.05.3013; (ii) withdraw/refund the interest levied/charged on any delayed payment; (iii) provide detailed calculation of the increase in the Super Area of the flat; (iv) pay delayed possession penalty in terms of Agreement; (v) to refund the amount, if any, charged in the name of sale of Open Car Parking Space; (iv) obtain “No Objection Certificate” from the Banks towards clearing of third party charge created by the Developer: and (v) pay compensation of ₹3,50,000/- towards mental agony and harassment.

10.     Upon notice, the Complaint was resisted by the Developer raising inter-alia, the preliminary issues to the effect that; (i) the State Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint in terms of Clause 34 of the Agreement wherein it was mutually agreed between the parties to confer the jurisdiction exclusively to the Courts at Faridabad and Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh alone, in all the matters arising out of or in connection with the Agreement; (ii) the Complaint involved the disputed and complicated questions of facts and law which requires an elaborate evidence for adjudication and as such the parties are to be relegated to a Civil Court; and (iii) Complaint against levy of escalation charges was not maintainable before the Consumer Fora.

11.     On merits, it was pleaded that; the Developer has completed the construction of the Project, known as “Park Floor, Sector 77, Faridabad” and obtained the Occupation Certificate from the Director of Town & Country Planning, Haryana on 13.12.2013 with the condition to complete the construction of the EWS Block and to inform them about the same; construction of the EWS Block was at full swing; Complainant was a defaulter in making the payment of instalments at due time and it is wrong to say that due to fault and misrepresentation of the Developer various demands raised could not be paid by him in time; Complaint has been filed by the Complainant with malafide intention to avoid the payment of legitimate charges in terms of Allotment letter and the Flat Buyer’s Agreement; no cause of action has arisen in favour of the Complainant as the demands raised in the letter dated 30.05.2013 were absolutely fair, legal, justified and in consonance with the Agreement; no specific agreement was executed between the parties for non-levying of interest till disbursement of loan by the LIC Housing Finance Ltd. and as a gesture of goodwill, the Developer had already agreed to waive the interest of ₹1,55,832/- accrued on account of the delayed payment of instalments.

12.     Further, as per Clause 2.1 of the Flat Buyer’s Agreement, the Developer had proposed to deliver the possession of the Flat within a period of 36 months from the date of sanction of Building Plans subject to Clause 9 or any other circumstances and subject to the Complainant having complied with all terms and conditions of the Agreement and not being in default under any of the provisions of the Agreement.  A grace period of 180 days was also agreed after elapse of period of 36 months for applying and obtaining Occupation Certificate. It is further contended that though the Developer had completed the construction of the Flat in November, 2012 but the possession of the Flat could not be handed over to the Complainant since the Occupation Certificate was pending from the concerned Authorities. The possession was subject to Clause 9, a Force Majeure condition and one of the Force Majeure  conditions, which was accepted between the parties, was the non-procurement of any approval from any of the Government Authorities including delay in issuance of Occupation Certificate/Completion Certificate. As such, there was no delay on the part of the Developer to hand over the possession to the Complainant, as alleged.

13.     It was submitted that the Complainant was well aware about the charges for Power Back up, electrification, cost escalation on account of increase in prices in the raw materials or any other costs and no illegal demands were raised vide letter dated 30.05.2013 against the terms and conditions of the Allotment. The Complainant on each and every visit was explained about the charges to his satisfaction. Vide Clause 1.4 of the Agreement, it was duly agreed that the final Super Area of the Flat shall be determined after completion of construction of the Project and after accounting of charges, if any, and thus, there was not any arbitrary increase in Super Area.  Vide Clause 12 of the Agreement, it was agreed between the parties that the Developer shall be at liberty to take loan from any Financial Institution/Company/Bank subject to the condition that the said flat shall be made free from all encumbrances at the time of execution of conveyance deed. Complainant was not entitled for any compensation and he was to comply with demands raised in the letter dated 30.05.2013 with interest towards delayed payments.

14.     Relying on the decision of this Commission in Radiant Infosystem Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. D. Adhilakshmi & Anr. – I (2013) CPJ 169 (NC), the State Commission rejected the preliminary objection raised by Developer to the effect that in terms of Clause 34 of the Agreement only Courts at Faridabad and Punjab and Haryana High Curt at Chandigarh have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  The State Commission came to the conclusion that since the Agreement was executed at Delhi and the Developer also has its Registered Office at Delhi, its jurisdiction u/s 17(2) of the Act, cannot be barred. It was observed as under:-

14.     “A preliminary objection raised by the OP that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the present complaint as per clause 34 of the Agreement. Exb. CW 1/6.  It is contended that only Courts at Faridabad and Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh alone have the jurisdiction.  The objection raised is baseless.  The Agreement Ex. CW 1/6 between the parties was executed at Delhi.  Even the registered office of OP is at Delhi.  Under Section 17(2) of the Act, this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to deal with the present complaint.  It has been held by National Commission in number of judgments that restriction of jurisdiction to a particular court need not be given any importance in the facts and circumstances of the case.  Reliance is placed upon Radiant Infosystem Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. D. Adhilakshmi & Anr.– I (2013) CPJ 169 (NC).”

15.     During the arguments in Complaint before the State Commission, the Learned Counsel for the Developer fairly admitted that even on the date of passing of the impugned order, the Developer was not in possession of the Occupation Certificate and the construction work of EWS Block has yet to be completed. Under these circumstances, the Developer cannot offer a legal possession of the Flat to Complainant. However, the Developer is still willing to offer the possession of the Flat with delay compensation in terms of Clause 2 (3) of the Agreement. 

16.     On the other hand, Learned Counsel appearing for the Complainant submitted that though a prayer has been made in the Complaint to set aside the demand letter dated 30.05.2013 and for grant of possession with compensation but in the light of the fact that the Developer is still not in a position to hand over the possession of the Flat, he does not press for the relief claimed and the Complainant is interested only in refund of the amount paid by him.

17.     Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, material available on record and the evidence adduced by the parties before it, the State Commission, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Fortune Infrastructure & Anr. Vs. Trevor D’Lima & Ors. – (2018) 5 SCC 442 and the decisions of this Commission in the case of Parsvnath Exotica Resident Association Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Ors., Devidayal Aluminium Industries (P) Ltd.  – IV (2016) CPJ 328 (NC), Subodh Pawar Vs. M/s Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. – CC No. 1998/16 decided on 24.09.18 and Amita Arora Vs. M/s. Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. – C.C.No.696/2017 decided on 27.03.2019, has held that even in the absence of a specific prayer, the Courts are at liberty to grant the relief which is justified and warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case and a Complainant cannot be asked to wait for indefinite period for the possession of the allotted Unit. Accordingly, the State Commission disposed of the complaint in the above terms.

18.     Aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, Delhi the Opposite Party has filed the present Appeal.

19.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length.

20.     Learned Counsel appearing for the Developer vehemently argued before us that allowing the prayer for refund of the deposited amount along with interest without there being any specific prayer to that effect, is against the established principles of law and natural justice; the construction of the Project was completed in November 2012 and the Occupation Certificate was also obtained on 13.12.2013, however, the withdrawal of Occupation Certificate by the Statutory Authority was beyond their control, though the construction was completed in time and the Occupation Certificate was also obtained, but the Complainant had defaulted in making the payment of instalments at due dates as a result there way delay in handing over the possession; the Developer is still ready and willing to hand over possession of the allotted Flat to the Complainant along with agreed delay penalty of ₹10/- per Sq. Ft. as prayed by him in the Complaint; the State Commission does not have an inherent power to allow the Complaint beyond the relief prayed for and without giving any opportunity to the Opposite Party to refute the same; the State Commission has erred in assuming the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint inasmuch as in terms of Clause 34 of the Agreement, the parties have mutually agreed to confer the jurisdiction exclusively to the Courts at Faridabad and Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh alone;

20.     Per contra, Learned Counsel appearing for the Complainant, while supporting the order passed by the State Commission, has pleaded that in catena of judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Commission has held that if the Developer or Builder has failed to deliver the possession of the allotted unit within the stipulated period, the Complainant has discretion to seek for refund of the amount deposited by him and the Courts are well within their power to grant any relief which is justified in each and every case despite a specific prayer to that effect is made or not.

21.     The Contention of the Developer that in view of the condition incorporated in the agreement excluding the jurisdiction of any other Court in respect of jurisdiction arising under the Agreement and limiting it at Faridabad and Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh alone, the State Commission, Delhi has no jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint, is not sustainable. In the case of Radiant Infosystem (Supra) relied by the State Commission, this Commission has held as under:-

“        A bare reading of the above provisions of law make it abundantly clear that the complaints got filed before a District Forum within the local jurisdiction in which the opposite party or each of the opposite parties voluntarily resided or work for gain or any of the opposite parties resides for work or where the cause of action wholly or in part.  In the case in hand going by the terms and conditions of the agreement and that the franchisee were to run the centres at their respective village/places and that the 64 services talked in the agreement were to be provided at the said centres and that the complainants had suffered loss and injury due to the deficiency in service committed by the opposite party at the said centres, there is no escape from the conclusion that the cause of action in these cases had arisen at the places which fell within the local limits of the concerned District Forums.  If the complainants were to be called upon to approach the State headquarters the very purpose of establishing the District Consumer Forums at the District level, would be lost.  The very object of establishing the District Forum in each District of the State / Country was to take justice to the doorsteps of the consumer.

9.       In this view, we are fortified with the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision dated 09.08.2011 passed in the Civil Appeal No. 7037 of 2004 in the case of  Ethiopian Airlines Vs. Ganesh NarainSaboo, where it has been held that the restriction of jurisdiction to a particular Court need not be given any importance in the circumstances of the cases. Thus looked the matter from any angle we are of the view that both the fora below have taken just view of the matter and the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity or any jurisdictional error.  The objection in regard to the territorial jurisdiction has been correctly decided by the fora below.”

22.     In the present case also, the Agreement has been executed between the parties at Delhi. Even the Registered Office of the Developer is situated in Delhi as such the State Commission was having the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint.

23.     Another preliminary objection raised by the Developer is that the complaint raises complex questions of facts and interpretation of law which requires elaborate evidence and such cases should be adjudicated by the Civil Courts. It is admitted position that the Complainant had booked a flat with the Developer and accordingly a Flat Buyer’s Agreement was executed.  As per the agreement the possession was to be delivered to the Complainant within 36 months from the date of sanction of building plan. Though the Complainant has completed the construction but he is not in possession of Occupancy Certificate. Thus, it is only the interpretation of terms and conditions and then to see whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Developer.

24.     Now, adverting to the merits of the case, the Complainants in these Complaints booked the respective Flats with the Developer in its Project, namely, Park Floor, Sector 77, Faridabad in the year 2008. Though the construction of the Project was completed in November 2012 and the Occupation Certificate was obtained on 13.12.2013 but the same was withdrawn by the Competent Authorities as the Developer failed to complete the construction of the EWS Block which was a pre-condition for issuance of Occupation Certificate by the DTCP. It is pleaded by the Developer that possession was subject to Clause 9 of Agreement which deals with Force Majeure circumstances. It is submitted that delay in issuance of Occupation Certificate is one of the Force Majeure conditions as such no delay can be attributed on their part.  The contention of the Developer is baseless and does not hold any water. There was no delay in the part of the Competent Authorities in grant of Occupancy Certificate which was issued on 13.12.2013 though subject to construction of EWS Block. It has been admitted by the Developer before the State Commission that the Developer is not in possession of Occupation Certificate and construction work of the EWS Block has not been completed till date. Had the construction of EWS Block been completed in time, the Occupation Certificate would have been issued by the Competent Authorities without any condition in the year 2013 itself. Even for the last 6 years, the construction of the EWS Block has not been completed and as such, the Developer has to blame itself only for the delay in issuance of Occupation Certificate.

25.     After concluding the arguments and reserving the order in these appeals, an application has been filed by the learned Counsel for the Complainant seeking permission to place on record a copy of RTI Reply dated 29.09.2019 received from the office of the Director General Town and Country Planning, Chandigarh (DGTCP) which confirms that that the Developer does not have a valid Occupancy Certificate for the Project. An Application has also been filed by the Developer stating that there were no Buyers/Applications for the EWS Apartments and non-completion of EWS Units would not affect the other Allottees of the Flats. Further, the non-completion of EWS does not confer any deficiency in service on their part and any violation under Section 11- N(2) of HUDA (Erection of Building) Regulations, 1979 is compoundable and the compounding amount is charged from the Colonizer.  It is contended that they are still ready to offer possession of the Flats with delay compensation.  It is further submitted that refund is a substantive relief which cannot be allowed without there being specific prayer in this regard in the Complaints. However, since the Developer does not have the Occupation Certificate, the Complainants are not interested to take possession of the Flats and seek the refund of the amount paid by them. We are of the considered opinion that in these circumstances, the Complainants cannot be compelled to take possession of the allotted Flats. With regard to the objection of the Developer that the Complainants are not entitled for the relief other than prayed for in the Complaint, the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Commission in catena of judgments has laid down the principal that in the absence of a specific prayer, it is still open to the Courts to grant a relief which is appropriate, justified and warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. In Parsvnath Exotica (Supra) this Commission has held as under:-

  “ Though, in Consumer Complaint No.45 of 2015, the main prayer made by the complainant is to direct delivery of the possession of the flats to the allottees complete in all respects, coupled with execution of the tile deed in their favour, when this matter came up for hearing on 27.4.2016, the learned counsel for the complainant stated on instructions, that since the building plans for construction of towers No. A-D have already lapsed and the revised plans have not been sanctioned as yet, the said allottees are not interested in waiting any longer for delivery of the possession of the flats and want to take refund, along with appropriate compensation for the financial loss suffered as well as the harassment and mental agony caused to them.  The learned counsel for the opposite party submitted in this regard that no prayer for refund has been made in Consumer Complaint No.45 of 2015.  In our opinion, even in the absence of any specific prayer, it is always open to this Commission to grant a relief which is justified and warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 

26.     Complainants have booked the Flats in the year 2008 with the Developer. Despite being paid almost 95% of the total consideration, they are still waiting for legal possession of the allotted Flats. In Emmar MGF Land Ltd. & Ors. vs. Amit Puri - II (2015) CPJ 568 NC, this Commission has held that after the promised date of delivery, it is the discretion of the Complainant whether he wants to accept the offer of possession, if any, or seek refund of the amounts paid with reasonable interest. In our view, it is well within the Complainant’s right to seek for refund of the principal amount with interest and compensation as the Occupancy Certificate has not been obtained by the Developer in the last six years. The Complainants cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the delivery of possession when they had already paid the almost entire consideration. Some of the Complainants have taken the home loans from Banks/Financial Institution and they are paying the heavy installments. The act of the Developer of enjoying the hard earned money of the Complainants without giving possession for the last six years, is not only an act of deficiency of service but also amounts to Unfair Trade Practice, especially in light of the view of the fact that they charge interest @ 18% p.a. for any delay in the payments made by the Flat Purchasers, but at the same time, offers compensation of ₹10/- per sq. ft.  per month for the period of delay, which is a very meager amount. Such terms in Clauses are extremely unfair and one sided and fall within the definition of ‘Unfair Trade Practice’ as defined under Section 2(r) of the Act.

27.     At this juncture, we find it a fit case to place reliance on the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raghavan - II (2009) CPJ 34 (SC),  wherein the Apex Court has observed as follows:

          “6.7.   A terms of a contract will not be final and binding if it is shown that the flat purchasers had no option but to sign on the dotted line, on a contract framed by the builder. The contractual terms of the Agreement dated 08.05.2012 are ex-facie one sided, unfair and unreasonable. The incorporation of such one-sided clauses in an agreement constitutes an unfair trade practice as per Section 2(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since it adopts unfair methods or practices for the purpose of selling the flats by the Builder.

7.       In view of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that the terms of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement dated 08.05.2012 were wholly one-sided and unfair to the Respondent-Flat Purchaser. The Appellant-Builder cannot seek to bind the Respondent with such one-sided contractual terms.”

28.     We further place reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Devasis Rudra, - II (2019) CPJ 29 SC,  in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as hereunder:-

          “.....It would be manifestly unreasonable to construe the contract between the parties as requiring the buyer to wait indefinitely for possession. By 2016, nearly seven years had elapsed from the date of the agreement. Even according to the developer, the completion certificate was received on 29 March 2016. This was nearly seven years after the extended date for the handing over of possession prescribed by the agreement. A buyer can be expected to wait for possession for a reasonable period. A period of seven years in beyond what is reasonable. Hence, it would have been manifestly unfair to non-suit the buyer merely on the basis of the first prayer in the reliefs sought before the SCDRC. There was in any event a prayer for refund.

                   In the circumstances, we are of the view that the orders passed by the SCDRC and by the NCDRC for refund of moneys were justified.”

29.     In the present Appeals also the Complainants cannot be asked to wait indefinitely as the possession of the booked Flats has not been handed over so far and there is also no possibility of handing over the possession in the near future inasmuch as the EWS Block has not been constructed so far by the Developer which was a condition for issuance of Occupation Certificate. The stand taken by the Developer that the Complainants are not entitled for refund of the deposited amount in absence of prayer to that effect, is unwarranted, unjustified and unsustainable. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Complainants are entitled for refund of the principal amount with reasonable interest and compensation. The State Commission has only directed the Developers to refund the amount deposited by the Complainants with interest ranging from 10% to 12% p.a.  Besides, a direction has also been given to the Developer to pay ₹50,000/- to the Complainants in this batch of Appeals. Hence, we are of the opinion that the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality, warranting interference.

30.     Consequently, the Appeals fail and are dismissed accordingly, but with no order as to costs.