^{STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,}

                             ^{UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH}

^{Sh. Pradeep Upadhyaya son of Sh. Ved Prakash Upadhyaya resident of House No.1573, Pushpac Complex, Sector 49-B, Chandigarh.}

                                                                             ^{.…Complainant}

^Versus

^{M/s. EMAAR MGF Land Ltd., through its Branch Head, Sh. Vikas Gupta, SCO 120-122, 1st Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.}

                                                                    ^{…. Opposite Party.}

^{BEFORE:       JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT}

                   ^{MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER}

^{Present:       Ms. Nandini Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.}

                   ^{Sh. Ashim Aggarwal, Advocate for the Opposite             Party.}

^{PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER}

                    ^{In brief, the facts of the case, are that the Opposite Party launched the project, by the name of Mohali Hills, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab where it propagated to provide residential space and assured high quality of residential complex, in entire Mohali Hills. It was stated that the Opposite Party showed a rosy picture to the complainant and misled him by repeated advertisements, in the newspapers. It was further stated that it was apprised by the Opposite Party, that its commercial projects were also coming up in the said vicinity, being promoted by it. It was further stated that the Opposite Party assured that it had been developing the land as early as in 2006/2007, so it had completed almost all the basic amenities at the project site. It was further stated that on the basis of the representations and assurances, given by the Opposite Party, the complainant agreed to purchase a residential unit in the said project. It was further stated that the complainant deposited Rs.10,00,000/- as booking amount vide cheque No.008761 dated 11.4.2011 in respect of the residential unit at Sector 105, Mohali Hills and the Opposite Party got the application for provisional allotment signed from him on 11.4.2011 itself. It was further stated that the Opposite Party vide letter dated 3.3.2012 (Annexure C-2) informed the complainant that he had been allotted plot No.105-CP-276-300 measuring 300 sq. yards and the basic price of the same was disclosed as Rs.75,00,000/- alongwith Rs.9,37,500/- towards the preferential location charges and external development charges of Rs.3,14,850/-, totaling Rs.87,52,350/- (as per schedule of payment, Annexure C-3). It was further stated that, thereafter, the complainant made the following payments, towards the price of plot to the Opposite Party:-}

^{2.                It was further stated that upto 18.9.2013, the complainant had made payment of Rs.83,77,350/- to the Opposite Party as against its demand of Rs.83,77,350/- and nothing remained due against him. It was further stated that Plot Buyer’s Agreement (Annexure C-14) was executed between the parties on 12.7.2012. It was further stated that the possession of plot was to be handed over to the complainant after the completion of internal works and external development. It was further stated that the Opposite Party was bound to deliver the possession of the allotted plot within a period of 18 months i.e. by 12.01.2014 from the date of execution of Plot Buyer’s Agreement i.e. 12.7.2012. It was further stated that the period of 18 months lapsed on 12.1.2014 and till date, neither the possession of the plot was handed over to the complainant nor the sale deed/conveyance deed was executed in favour of the complainant nor the amenities like sewerage, roads etc. were complete. It was further stated that even the electricity connection/load was not sanctioned, in favour of the Opposite Party, and, as such, it was impossible to live in such an area.}

^{3.                It was further stated that the Opposite Party was not only deficient, in rendering service, as it failed to hand over possession of the plot within the period of 18 months, as envisaged by Clause 8 of the Plot Buyer’s Agreement but also adopted unfair trade practice as neither the possession of the plot was handed over till date as per the agreement, nor it completed the amenities as agreed to under Clause 25 of Plot Buyer’s Agreement. It was further stated that the complainant did not want payment of stipulated penalty, in case of delay beyond 21 months, but seeks refund of his money. It was further stated that the time period of 21 months was provided only for payment of penalty @Rs.50/- per sq. yard per month. It was further stated that the complainant visited the site, in question, where his plot was situated and found that till date the internal development works were not completed as electrical, sewerage and water lines were not complete nor the internal roads were laid. It was further stated that the complainant sought refund of his money but the Opposite Party refused to refund the same.}

^{4.                It was further stated that the acts of the Opposite Party in not delivering the actual physical possession, complete in all respects, or refunding the amount alongwith interest, to the complainant, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also, 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 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, seeking directions to the Opposite Party, to refund Rs.83,77,350/-alongwith interest @24% per annum, from the respective dates of deposits, without deduction of the TDS;  pay Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony besides Rs.35,000/- as cost of litigation or any other relief, which this Commission deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.}

^{5.                The Opposite Party, in its written statement, took up certain preliminary objections to the effect that the complaint having been filed before the expiry of 21 months for handing over the possession of the plot from the date of execution of Plot Buyer’s Agreement dated 12.7.2012, which expired on 12.4.2014, was premature and the State Commission did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint on account of existence of Arbitration Clause No.42 in the agreement executed between the parties.}

^6.