Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/21/2018

Chandraveer Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Vertika H Singh, Adv.

18 Sep 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Complaint case No.	:	21 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	12.01.2018
Date of Decision	:	18.09.2018

Chandraveer Jain S/o Late Sh.Sukhbir P. Jain, resident of C-765, 1st Floor, New Friends Colony, New Delhi – 110025.

……Complainant

V e r s u s

M/s EMAAR MGF Land Private Limited (EMAAR MGF), SCO No.120-122, 1st Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh - 160017, through its Managing Director.
M/s EMAAR MGF Land Private Limited having its Corporate Office at ECE House, 28, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi – 110001 through its General Manager/Authorised Representative.
Sanjay Malhotra, CEO M/s Emaar Pvt. Ltd. Emaar Business Park, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Sikanderpur Chowk, Sector 28, Gurgaon, A Block, DLF, Phase 1, Sector 28, Gurugram – 122002, Haryana.

... Opposite Parties

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

Argued by:

Mrs. Vertika H.Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. Ashim Aggarwal, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

The facts, in brief, are that the complainant bought a plot in the project of the Opposite Parties viz. “Mohali Hills”. Accordingly, Plot Buyer’s Agreement dated 04.07.2007 was executed between the parties (Annexure C-1), whereby, plot No.620, measuring 300 sq. yds. in Augusta Greens in Sector 109, Mohali was allotted to the complainant. The total aggregate sale price of the said plot was Rs.36,19,104/-. The complainant made the total payment of Rs.36,19,104/- by 24.02.2010. The complainant also paid interest for late payment amounting to Rs.1,22,299/-. As per Clause 8 of the Agreement, possession of the plot was to be delivered within a maximum period of three years from the date of execution of the Agreement i.e. latest by 04.07.2010 but the Opposite Parties failed to hand over the same. The complainant sent emails dated 15.02.2013 & 11.04.2013 (Annexure C-3 colly.) to the Opposite Parties to enquire about the possession of the said plot. Thereafter, the Opposite Parties offered relocation to plot No.179 and subsequently plot No.753 but the complainant refused to accept the same. Eventually, vide letter dated 26.06.2015, it was intimated by the Company that there was a revision in layout of the project area, which had necessitated relocation of the allotment of the complainant from plot No.109-AG-620-300 to 109-AG-598-300 and also informed that relocated plot was ready and possession could be facilitated within next 60 days (Annexure C-7). It was further stated that the complainant vide email dated 08.07.2015 objected the relocation because the complainant found that the new layout plan was the same as the original layout plan and his originally allotted plot No.620 still existed on the revised layout plan. It was further stated that the relocation of the said unit had been deliberately made by the Company unilaterally without the consent of the complainant. The complainant again objected to the relocation vide letter dated 20.07.2015. After a lapse of one and a half month, the Company again sent email dated 10.09.2015, whereby, it was again only intimated to visit the site and none of the queries/objections were replied by the Opposite Parties. Eventually, after several communications, vide email dated 11.01.2016, the Opposite Parties confirmed regarding relocation from unit No.109-AG-620-300 to unit No.109-AG-470-300. Copies of all the communications are Annexure C-8 (Colly.). It was further stated that despite assuring the complainant that in case, if he accepts the relocation then the possession of the said unit would be handed over to him within 60 days but the Company took three months for the process of relocation. The complainant received the documents pertaining to relocation of the said unit in April, 2016. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties in the said Agreement stated that the relocation had been done on the request of the complainant, whereas, the actual fact was that the Opposite Parties consistently refused to hand over the possession of plot no.620 and continued to offer the complainant various other plots from time to time, which he had never accepted. Subsequently, a revised amendment agreement was sent by the Opposite Parties in July, 2016 and at that time it came to the notice of the complainant that the amenities with respect to the newly relocated plot No.470 were incomplete. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties sent letter of intimation of possession dated 19.07.2016 (Annexure C-13), in which, it has been mentioned that only temporary electricity and water connection had been sanctioned for the project. It was further stated the relocation was accepted by the complainant under duress in January, 2016 on the assurance that the Opposite Parties shall hand over possession of the same immediately on accepting the relocation. However, there was no communication on behalf of the Company till March, 2016. The complainant sent email dated 10.03.2016 regarding the status of the process of his case (Annexure C-15) and only after number of requests, the Company sent documents in July, 2016. Even the Opposite Parties also sought 60 days time for handing over of possession, as such, the complainant is no more interested in the relocation of the said unit. It was further stated that the complainant did not sign the Amendment Agreement. It was further stated that the complainant was offered the possession of the said plot without there being proper regular amenities. Ultimately, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 11.01.2017 (Annexure C-16) to the Opposite Parties but they never bothered to file reply. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties have failed to give any penalty, as per the Agreement, which amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the ‘Act’ only), was filed.

2. The Opposite Parties, in their written version, have taken objection regarding arbitration clause in the Agreement, and also they separately, moved an application u/s 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 taking a specific objection in this regard for referring the matter to the Arbitrator in terms of the agreed terms and conditions of the Agreement. It was further stated that the complainant did not fall within the definition of “Consumer” as prescribed under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as he purchased the plot, in question, for commercial/speculation purposes. It was further stated that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to try this complaint, as the property is located at Mohali, registered office of the Opposite Parties is at New Delhi and as per settled law, a Company can be sued only at the place its registered office is located. It was further stated that this Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, as value of good and compensation including interest exceeds Rs.1 crore. It was further stated that the complainant was provisionally allotted unit No.109-AG-534-300 vide letter dated 25.06.2007, which was PLC unit. On the request of the complainant, he was shifted to unit No.109-AG-620-300 and again relocated to unit No.109-AG-470-300 (Exhibits OP/2 and OP/3). It was admitted regarding receipt of the amount of Rs.36,19,104/- from the complainant in respect of the unit, in question. It was denied that Opposite Parties were bound to hand over possession of the plot to the complainant within a period of two years. It was further stated that as per Clause 8 of the Agreement, the Company “endeavored” to hand over possession within 3 years from the date of execution of the Agreement. Thus, there no definitive Agreement stating that possession would definitely be delivered within a period of 3 years. It is well settled principle of law that in cases of sale of immovable property and construction, time is never regarded as the essence of the contract more so when there is penalty clause under the Agreement for any alleged delay. It was further stated that the possession of the plot has been offered on 19.07.2016 and compensation amounting to Rs.886232/- for the alleged delay was credited to the account of the complainant. It was denied that the Opposite Parties ever pressurized the complainant to opt for re-location. It was further stated that as per Clause F of the Agreement, it was agreed that location was tentative and subject to change, as such, the complainant was relocated the unit. It was further stated that the complainant duly agreed for relocation, as he wanted early possession, as such, on his request, the amendment agreement was sent in July, 2016 but the complainant failed to execute the Agreement. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties obtained Partial Completion Certificate on 16.10.2015 (Exhibit OP/6). It was further stated that all amenities were in place on unit No.109-AG-470-300 at the time of offer of possession and many allottees taken over possession in same area and have started construction. It was further stated that the complainant never raised any objection when he consented to relocation. It was further stated that if the complainant chooses to cancel Agreement at this stage then forfeiture clause would be applicable. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice.

3. The complainant, filed rejoinder to the written statement of the Opposite Parties, wherein he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and refuted those, contained in the written version of the Opposite Parties.

4. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

6. First, we will deal with an objection, raised by the Opposite Parties, that in the face of existence of provision to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitration, in terms of provisions of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint.

It may be stated here that this issue has already been dealt with, by this Commission, in a case titled as ‘Sarbjit Singh Vs. Puma Realtors Private Limited’, IV (2016) CPJ 126, while relying upon ratio of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, titled as Fair Air Engg. Pvt. Ltd. & another Vs. N. K. Modi (1996) 6 SCC 385, C.C.I Chambers Coop. Housing Society Ltd. Vs Development Credit Bank Ltd. (2003) 7 SCC 233, Rosedale Developers Private Limited Vs. Aghore Bhattacharya and others, (Civil Appeal No.20923 of 2013), Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha (2004) 1 SCC 305 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pushpalaya Printers, I (2004) CPJ 22 (SC), and LIC of India and another Vs. Hira Lal, IV (2011) CPJ 4 (SC), and held that even in the face of existence of arbitration clause in an Agreement/Allotment Letter, to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitration, in terms of provisions of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint. Recently, the larger Bench of the National Commission in a case titled as Aftab Singh Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited & Anr., Consumer Case No. 701 of 2015, vide order dated 13.07.2017, has held that an Arbitration Clause in the Agreements between the complainants and the Builder cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of a Consumer Fora, notwithstanding the amendments made to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. Feeling aggrieved against the said findings, the builder filed Civil Appeal bearing No.23512-23513 of 2017 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which was dismissed vide order dated 13.02.2018.

In view of above, the objection raised by the Opposite Parties, in this regard, being devoid of merit is rejected.

7. The next question that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint or not.

According to Section 17 of the Act, a consumer complaint can be filed, by the complainant, before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, within the territorial Jurisdiction whereof, a part of cause of action arose to them. In the instant case, it is evident from the record, that Plot Buyer’s Agreement was executed between the parties at Chandigarh on 04.07.2007. Not only this, the complainant has also annexed letters (Annexures C-12 & C-13) were sent by the Opposite Parties from their Chandigarh Office, as the aforesaid documents bore the address as “SCO 120-122, First Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh 160017”. Since, as per the documents, referred to above, a part of cause of action arose to the complainant, at Chandigarh, this Commission has got territorial Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. The objection taken by the Opposite Parties, in their written version, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

8. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant falls within the definition of a consumer, as defined by Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act, or not. The Opposite Parties in their written statement stated that complainant did not fall within the definition of “Consumer”, as he purchased the plot, in question, for commercial/ speculation purposes. After going through the record, we are of the view that the objection taken by the Opposite Parties does not carry any weight and is liable to be rejected. It is pertinent to note that the complainant has mentioned in his complaint that the said plot was purchased by him for his own residential purposes. Even otherwise, the mere fact that it was a residential unit/plot, which was allotted, in favour of the complainant, was sufficient to prove that it was to be used for the purpose of residence, by the complainant. There is nothing, on the record, that the complainant is property dealer. Thus, in the absence of any cogent evidence, in support of the objection raised by the Opposite Parties, mere bald assertion i.e. simply saying that the complainant purchased the property for speculation purposes, as such, he did not fall within the definition of a consumer, cannot be taken into consideration. Further, in a case titled as Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jai Krishna Estate Developer Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (1) CPJ 31, decided by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it was held that the buyer(s) of the residential unit(s), would be termed as consumer(s), unless it is proved that he or she had booked the same for commercial purpose. Similar view was reiterated by the National Commission, in DLF Universal Limited Vs Nirmala Devi Gupta, 2016 (2) CPJ 316. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the present case. The complainant, thus, falls within the definition of a ‘consumer’, as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Such an objection, taken by the Opposite Parties, in their written reply, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.

9. Another objection taken by the Opposite Parties, with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction, also deserves rejection. It may be stated here that as per Section 17 (1) (a) of the Act, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission shall have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain any complaint, complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees one crore. It was also so elucidated elaborately by a Large Bench of the National Commission in the case titled as Ambrish Kumar Shukla and 21 ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Consumer Case No.97 of 2016, decided on 07.10.2016. Relevant part of the said order reads thus:-

“It is evident from a bare perusal of Sections 21, 17 and 11 of the Consumer Protection Act that it’s the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed which determines the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. The Act does not envisage determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction based upon the cost of removing the deficiencies in the goods purchased or the services to be rendered to the consumer. Therefore, the cost of removing the defects or deficiencies in the goods or the services would have no bearing on the determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction. If the aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed of by a consumer, when added to the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint by him, exceeds Rs. 1.00 crore, it is this Commission alone which would have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. For instance if a person purchases a machine for more than Rs.1.00 crore, a manufacturing defect is found in the machine and the cost of removing the said defect is Rs.10.00 lacs, it is the aggregate of the sale consideration paid by the consumer for the machine and compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint which would determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. Similarly, if for instance, a house is sold for more than Rs.1.00 crore, certain defects are found in the house, and the cost of removing those defects is Rs.5.00 lacs, the complaint would have to be filed before this Commission, the value of the services itself being more than Rs.1.00 crore. ”

In the present case, if total agreegate sale price of the unit, in question i.e. Rs.36,19,104/- plus compensation claimed by way of interest @15% p.a. on the amount deposited to the tune of Rs.37,41,403/- (in fact Rs.36,19,104/-); compensation to the tune of Rs.3 lacs claimed for mental agony and physical harassment, till the date of filing this complaint, is taken into consideration, it exceeds Rs.20 lacs and fell below Rs.1 crore. Thus, this Commission has got pecuniary Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide this complaint. The objection taken by the Opposite Parties that this Commission lacks pecuniary jurisdiction, being devoid of merit, must fail and the same stands rejected.

10. Another objection raised by Counsel for the Opposite Parties that since it was mentioned in the Agreement that the Company only “endeavored” to deliver possession of the unit within maximum period of 3 years, from the date of execution of the Agreement thereof, as such, no definite assurance was given, therefore, time was not to be considered as the essence of contract, is also devoid of merit. It may be stated here that it was clearly mentioned in Clause 8 of the Agreement that possession of the unit will be delivered by the Opposite Parties, within a maximum period of 3 years, from the date of execution of the Agreement, subject to force majeure circumstances or reason beyond the control of the Opposite Parties. In the instant case, the Opposite Parties did not raise any force majeure circumstances, if any, encountered by them. In the absence of any force majeure circumstances having been faced by the Opposite Parties or any other valid and legal reason beyond their control, the stand taken by them, in this regard, for condonation of delay in delivery of possession of the unit, to the complainant, cannot be taken into consideration. Thus, under these circumstances, since as per Clause 8 of the Agreement, the Opposite Parties were bound to deliver possession of the unit, within a maximum period of 3 years, from the date of execution of the Agreement, as such, time was, unequivocally made the essence of contract.

At the same time, the Opposite Parties, also cannot evade their liability, merely by saying that since the words “shall endeavor/try/propose etc.” was mentioned in the Agreement, for delivery of possession of the unit, as such, time is not to be considered as essence of the contract. The act of non-mentioning of exact date in the Agreement is violation of CHAPTER II Regulation of Promotion of Construction, Sale, Transfer and Management of Apartments, Plots and Properties, Condition no. 3(2) (g) of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (PAPRA), which says that the project proponent is duty bound to specify, in writing, the date by which possession of the unit is to be handed over and it shall hand over such possession accordingly. Relevant contents of condition no.3(2) (g) of PAPRA are reproduced below:-

“(g) specify, in writing, the date by which possession of the plot or apartment is to be handed over and he shall hand over such possession accordingly”;

Furthermore, non-mentioning of exact date of delivery of possession of the unit(s) in the Buyer’s Agreement/allotment letter, is an unfair trade practice on the part of the Builder. The builder is bound to mention the exact/specific date of delivery of possession of the plots/unit(s) to the allottees/purchasers thereof. It was so said by the Hon`ble National Commission, in Rajeev Nohwar & Anr. V/S Sahajanand Hi Tech Construction Pvt Ltd, 2016 (2) CPR 769. Relevant portion of the said case reads thus:-

“Merely making possession by a particular date will also not meet the requirement of law and the promotor is under a legal mandate to stipulate a specific date for delivery of possession of the flat in the agreement which he executes with the flat buyer”.

In view of above, the plea of the Opposite Parties in this regard also stands rejected.

11. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to within which period, the delivery of possession of the unit, was to be given to the complainant. As per Clause 8 of the Agreement, possession of the unit was to be delivered to the complainant within a maximum period of 3 years from the date of execution of the Agreement. In the instant case, Agreement was executed between the parties on 04.07.2007 (Annexure C-1) and, as such, possession was to be delivered to the complainant latest by 03.07.2010 and not more than that.

12. It is not in dispute that, initially, plot bearing No.620 in Augusta Greens, Sector 109, Mohali was allotted to the complainant. Thereafter, Buyer’s Agreement was executed between the parties on 04.07.2007. As per Clause 8 of the Agreement, possession of the said unit was to be delivered latest by 03.07.2010. However, the Opposite Parties after receipt of the huge amount of Rs.36,19,104/- failed to deliver possession of plot bearing No.620 to the complainant, despite repeated requests vide emails dated 15.02.2013 & 11.04.2013 (Annexure C-3 colly.). Thereafter, the Opposite Parties offered relocation thrice i.e. plot No.109-MLU-179-300 and then to 109-AP-753-300 and due to revision in layout of the project, the Opposite Parties relocated plot No.109-AG-598-300. The Opposite Parties assured that possession of the said plot could be given within next 60 days. Thereafter, the complainant vide letter dated 20.07.2015 (Annexure C-8 Colly.) refused to accept the relocation decided by the Opposite Parties unilaterally. Ultimately, vide email dated 11.01.2016, the Opposite Parties confirmed regarding the relocation of unit No.109-AG-470-300. It is evident from the said email (Annexure C-11) that the said decision for relocation was taken by the Company unilaterally without consulting the complainant. Even Amendment Agreement was sent by the Opposite Parties to the complainant and the same was not signed/executed by the complainant. Even it is also clear from Clause B of the Amendment Agreement (at page No.59 of the file) that due to change in the master layout plan, the Company offered plot bearing No.470 in Sector 109, Mohali to the complainant. Moreover, the Opposite Parties sent intimation of possession of plot No.109-AG-470-300 in Block AG at Sector 109, Mohali Hills to the complainant vide letter dated 19.07.2016 (Annexure C-13). The relevant portion of the said letter reads thus :-

“xxxx We are pleased to inform you that the process of handing over of the plots in Sector 109, Mohali Hills shall commence within 60 days of this letter, as your plot is ready to be handed over for possession.

Further, we also wish to inform you that temporary electricity and water connection has already been sanctioned for the Project and on taking possession you can commence construction on the captioned plot after taking requisite approvals/building plan approvals from the competent authorities.”

From the afore-extracted letter, it is clear that the possession of the said unit would be handed over to him within 60 days of the said letter but the Company took three months for the process of relocation itself, as is evident from the email dated 03.10.2016 (Annexure C-15). It is evident from the aforesaid communications, which was exchanged between the parties that the Opposite Parties offered relocation from time to time not only once but also 3-4 times but the Opposite Parties failed to deliver possession of the plot, as desired by the complainant. It is pertinent to note that the complainant had confirmed for relocation vide email dated 06.01.2016 only on the assurance of the Opposite Parties that the possession should be given within 60 days but the Opposite Parties took three months time for the processing of the documents and Amendment Agreement was also not executed between the parties regarding the relocated plot. The complainant time and again objected to the relocation since he was interested in the possession of the unit allotted to him. Due to the act and conduct of the Opposite Parties, the complainant lost complete faith in the Company and sought refund of the amount vide legal notice dated 11.01.2017. Since the Amendment Agreement had not been executed between the parties, the complainant had every right to withdraw his consent prior to executing the said Agreement.

13. With regard to offer of relocation of the unit is concerned, the Opposite Parties cannot compel the complainant to accept the same, as is held by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi recently in the case titled as Sujay Bharatiya & Anr. Vs. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd., Consumer Case No. 1814 of 2017 decided on 05.07.2018 held as under:-

“This Commission in Emaar MGF Land Ltd. & Anr. V. Amit Puri (First Appeal No.250 of 2014), decided on 30.03.2015, has held that if the Developer fails to deliver possession of the allotted plot/flat within the stipulated time, the allottee is under no obligation to accept an alternative plot. At the cost of repetition, we may reiterate that in the event of Developer failing to deliver possession of the property within the stipulated period, for any reason, save and except a force majeure condition, agreed to between the contracting parties, an allottee cannot be compelled to accept an alternate site/plot and he would be within his rights to seek refund of the amount deposited with the Developer against allotment”.

The Opposite Parties, therefore, have no right, to retain the hard-earned money of the complainant, deposited towards price of the relocated unit, in question. The complainant is thus, entitled to get refund of amount deposited by him.

14. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant is entitled to refund of the deposited amount. It is the admitted fact that the complainant deposited the total amount of Rs.36,19,104/- in respect of the unit, in question. However, the complainant in the prayer clause of the complaint sought refund of Rs.37,41,403/-. It is pertinent to note that the complainant sought refund of Rs.36,19,104/- + interest for late payment amount to Rs.1,22,299/- i.e. totaling Rs.37,41,403/-. So, we are of the view that the complainant is not entitled for the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,22,299/-, as he is at fault, that is why he paid interest on the late payment charges. As per the Agreement, possession was to be delivered by the Opposite Parties within a maximum period of 3 years from the date of execution of the Agreement, which expired on 03.07.2010 but after receipt of the huge amount from the complainant, the Opposite Parties failed to deliver possession of the initially allotted plot bearing No.620 complete in all respects to the complainant within the stipulated time frame as mentioned in the Agreement, as relocated plot(w) were not accepted by him. So, the complainant is thus, entitled to get refund of amount of Rs.36,19,104/- only deposited by him. In view of above facts of the case, the Opposite Parties are also under an obligation to compensate the complainant, for inflicting mental agony and causing physical harassment to him.

15. It is to be further seen, as to whether, interest, on the amount refunded, can be granted, in favour of the complainant. It is not in dispute that an amount of Rs.36,19,104/-, was paid by the complainant, without getting anything, in lieu thereof. The said amount has been used by the Opposite Parties, for their own benefit. The Opposite Parties were charging rate of interest @15% p.a. compounded, as per Clause 3 of the Agreement, for the period of delay in making payment of installments. It is well settled law that whenever money has been received by a party and when its refund is ordered, the right to get interest follows, as a matter of course. The obligation to refund money received and retained without right implies and carries with it, the said right. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the complainant is held entitled to get refund of the amount deposited by him, to the tune of Rs.36,19,104/- alongwith simple interest @12% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits till realization.