1. The present Consumer Complaint has been filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) against Opposite Party M/s. BPTP Limited (hereinafter referred to as Builder).   

2. The facts of the case as enumerated in the Complaint are that Brij Mohan Mittal and his wife Smt. Uma Mittal (hereinafter referred to as the Complainants) were in search of a plot for their residence in Greater Faridabad.  BPTP Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Builder’), who is engaged in the business of real estate, launched a residential plot Project ‘Parklands’ (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Project’) in Faridabad in the year 2005 inviting applications for the Plots at the rate of ₹7450/- per sq. yard. The Registration for the booking of the plot could be done by paying booking amount of ₹3 lakh and the balance amount was to be deposited in installments. As per the policy of the Builder the Registration of the said Plots were transferable to the new purchasers.  The Complainants purchased the Registration of a residential Plot measuring 250 yards @ ₹7450/- per sq. yard and got it transferred in his name.  It was stated that ₹450/- was refunded back as incentive / discount, therefore, the effective cost of the plot was ₹7000/- per sq. yard and which was payable in installments.  The Builder allotted a Plot measuring 250 sq. yard being Plot No. E35-1 to the Complainants on 20.06.2007.  It is alleged that the Builder handed over the possession of the Plots to each and every Registration Holders of the year 2008 – 2009 except the Complainants.  The Builder changed the Plot number of the Complainant from E-35/1 to B-17/07 vide letter dated 15.10.2009.  It is alleged that vide letter dated 14.05.2016, the Builder changed the area of the plot from 250 sq. yard to 939 sq. yard and allotted another plot, i.e., Plot No. E-23 to the Complainants and thus, burdened the Complainants with extra cost of 689 sq. yards. As per demand of the Builder the Complainants deposited 1^st EMI and 2^nd EMI of ₹62811/- and ₹6,00,000/-, calculated @ ₹7450/-, for extra 689 sq. yrd. against Plot No. E-23 on 5.07.2016 and 28.07.2016 respectively.  It is further alleged that on 27.02.2017 the Builder called Complainant to their office for handing over the possession but forcibly took the signatures of the Complainants on some paper and demanded the cost of extra 689 sq. yard @ ₹10,000/- in one time alongwith interest @18% on delayed payment beyond 31.05.2017.  The Builder used this paper as MOU for justification of increased rate and onetime payment, whereas it is the case of the Complainant that they are entitled for the whole plot of 939 sq. yard at old rates, i.e., @ ₹7450/-.   It was also stated that Complainants filed a case before the Permanent Lok Adalat which returned the Complaint to the Complainants with liberty to resort any other civil / criminal legal remedy.  Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Builder, the Complainants has filed the present Complaint with following prayer:-
3. “a) Deliver the possession of plot No. E23, BPTP Parkland Faridabad, to Complainant @7000/- per sq. yard, in instalments;
    
   b) Claim PLC and all other misc. taxes etc., as approved by Government of Haryana / India;
    
   c) Pay ₹1,00,00,000/- as compensation to the Complainants;
    
   i) for delay in handing over the possession of said plot from year 2008, on the same rate, as charged by Opposite Party as holding charges for delay, if possession accepted delayed by the 1st Party, i.e., ₹5/- per sq. yard per month; and
    
   ii) Cost of escalation of construction & damages.
    
   Iii) Interest @18% p.a. from the date of payment made by Complainant, till the date of handing over the actual possession of plot, on the amount paid by the Complainant to Opposite Party.
    
   d) Pass an order directing to Opposite Party to pay litigation and other charges to Complainant;
    
   e) Any other or further order, which deems fit & proper, may kindly also pass in favour of the Complainant and against the Opposite Party.”
3. The Opposite Party Builder filed its written version and submitted that the Complainants had not approached this Commission with clean hands.  It was submitted that one Mr. Surender Pal Kalra booked a plot in their Project @₹7450/- per sq. yard as Basic Sale Price (BSP) apart from various other charges like External Development Charges (EDC), Infrastructure Development Charges (IDC) and PLC etc. and being transferee the Complainants stepped into his shoes knowing this fact and had also agreed to BSP @₹7450/- per sq. yard.  It was also submitted that clause (e) of the Application for Provisional Registration does not guarantee allotment of a Plot.  Since they are developing huge area, they are offering possession of the Plots in phases.  It was also submitted that due to change in the layout plan, Plot No. E 35 – 1, allotted to the Complainants was changed to Plot No. B-17-07.  But due to Complainants unwillingness to accept the said Plot and since the Complainants wanted a Plot on a road of 24 mtr./ 30 mtr. /45 mtr., Plot No. E-23 admeasuring 939 sq. yard was offered to them which was duly accepted by the Complainants.  After various meetings, negotiations and oral agreements between the representatives of both the Parties it was agreed that the excess area of the plot would be charged at prevailing market price. It was further submitted that Accounts Department of the Builder inadvertently issued the letter offering possession of the Plot No. E-23 demanding unit price for the entire plot @7450/- per sq. yard.  Although the said letter was withdrawn yet the Complainants wanted to take advantage of bonafide mistake committed by the Builder.  An MOU was entered between the Parties on 27.02.2017 and the cost of the excess area of 689 sq. was agreed to be fixed @ ₹10,000/- per sq. yard however, the prevailing market price was ₹25,000/- per sq. yard.  The said MOU was duly witnessed by the Complainants’ son Mr. Ankit Mittal, Advocate.   It was further submitted that the Complainants do not want to adhere to the terms of the MOU dated 27.02.2017.  The Complainants filed Complaint before Permanent Lok Adalat, Faridabad, where various plots of different sizes and locations were offered to the Complainants.  The Complainants selected Plot No. E-23 of 939 sq. yards.  The Builder allotted Plot No. E-23 to the Complainants.  But the Complainants did not honour the commitments of paying the price of excess area at the prevailing market price due to which the matter could not be settled and Permanent Lok Adalat returned the Complaint to the Complainants vide Order dated 10.08.2016. It was further submitted that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed that the Consumer Complaint be dismissed.
4. On 09.04.2018, this Commission passed the following Order :

It is agreed between the parties that subject to final result in the Complaint, particularly relating to the applicability of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.2.2017, the possession of the subject plot admeasuring 939 sq.yd. bearing No.E-23 in BPTP Parkland Project, Faridabad, shall be delivered by the Opposite Party to the Complainant without prejudice to their rights to claim additional compensation in terms of the afore-stated Memorandum, subject to the Complainants’ paying the regular charges like EDC, IDC, which have been charged by the Opposite Party from other allottees at the time of delivery of possession. The Complainants, who are represented by Complainant No.1, states that he will not create any third-party interest in the plot in question without the leave of this Commission.

5. In compliance of Order dated 30.10.2018, the Opposite Party Builder filed Affidavit giving the details of the amount which is due and payable by the Complainants according to BSP@7450/- per sq. ft. and according to the M.O.U. dated 27.02.2017.  According to the said Affidavit, there was outstanding balance of ₹10,96,783/- as per BSP@7450/- sq. yd. whereas as per M.O.U. the outstanding balance amount payable by the Complainants was ₹29,24,733/-.
6. On 05.11.2018 the following Order was passed:
   • The Complainant, who appears in person has stated that he is prepared to pay the amount of ₹10,96,783/- as mentioned by the Opposite Party that the amount remains to be paid provided the Opposite Party hands over peaceful vacant possession of the plot in question.  Rest of the issues may be examined at the time of final disposal.

Taking into consideration, the statement made by the Complainant, we direct the Complainants to pay ₹10,96,783/- to the Opposite Party, within a week and on receiving the said amount, the Opposite Party will hand over the peaceful vacant possession of the flat in question immediately. Rest of the issues will be decided at the time of final disposal of the Complaint.”

7. In compliance of above Order, the OP Builder handed over the possession of the Plot to the Complainants after having received a sum of ₹10,96,783/- but the Conveyance Deed of the Plot has not been executed in favour of the Complainants.
8.  
8. Mr. Ankit Mittal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Complainants submitted that they have registered for plot of 250 sq. yd. @ ₹7450/-, but OP allotted Plot No. E-23 admeasuring 939 sq. yd., therefore, cost of plot be calculated @₹7450/- per sq. yd.; OP Builder is not entitled for any delayed interest as they have sent the payments through cheques but the same was not accepted by the OP Builder.  He submitted that the Complainants are entitled for interest @9% p.a. for delayed delivery of the Possession.  He further submitted that the cost of construction has increased therefore, they are also entitled for damages.  He submitted that the OP Builder is charging 15% Preferential Location Charges (PLC) (10% for Sector Road and 5% for corner) whereas as per practice, OP Builder has charged maximum 10% PLC from other Allottees.  Therefore, the OP Builder is entitled for 10% PLC and not 15% PLC from them.  He further submitted that the OP Builder cannot charge Club Membership Charges, Utility connection charges & Electrification & STP Charges before construction started. It was also submitted that the Complainant have deposited ₹12,92,064/- as Enhanced External Development Charges with OP Builder, if the OP Builder has not deposited the same with the Government of Haryana, the same amount be refunded to the Complainants.  He further submitted that the OP Builder be directed to execute the Conveyance Deed in favour of the Complainants.  It was also submitted that vide Order dated 09.04.2018, the complainants were restrained to create third party interest in the plot in question.  He prayed that the Complainants be allowed to create third party interest in the plot in question. 
9. I have heard Mr. Ankit Mittal, learned Counsel for the Complainants, Mr. Pragyan Sharma and Mr. Mudit Makhijani, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party Builder and perused Complaint, Written Statement and given a thoughtful consideration to the various pleas raised by them.

10. The Complainants step in the shoes of Mr. Surender Pal Kalra, i.e., Original Registrant, when they got transferred the registration in their name in view of the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Laureate Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. vs. Charanjeet Singh” [2021 SCC OnLine SC 479], in which it has been held that subsequent purchaser who takes over the obligation of the Original purchaser to pay the balance amount, would not per se exclude them from the description of a Consumer. 

11. It is not in dispute that the Complainants got transferred the booking / registration of Plot admeasuring 250 sq. yd. at Basic Sale Price (BSP) of ₹7450/- per sq. yd. in its favour by the OP Builder on 25.09.2006.  Plot No. E-35/01 was allotted on 04.06.2007 by the OP Builder but due to change in layout Plot No. B17-07 admeasuring 250 sq. yd. was allotted.  The Complainants vide letter dated 04.11.2009 requested the OP Builder to allot another Plot.  Ultimately, the Complainants were allotted Plot No. E-23 admeasuring 939 sq. yd. on 13.05.2016 as per their choice which was corner and located at Sector Road. Although the prevailing market rate was more than ₹25,000/- per sq. yd. yet the OP Builder agreed to charge Basic Sale Price of Plot as per M.O.U, which was signed between the Parties on 27.02.2017, according to which the Basic Sale Price (BSP) of 250 sq. yd. would be ₹7450/- per sq. yd. and the BSP of extra 689 sq. yd. would be ₹10,000/- per sq. yd.  Although the Complainants alleged that the said M.O.U. was signed under threat yet considering that the prevailing market rate was more than ₹25,000/- per sq. yd. and to balance the equity, the Basic Sale Price (BSP) of the Plot in question, is fixed at ₹7450/- per sq. yd. for 250 sq. yd. and ₹10,000/- per sq. yd. for excess 689 sq. yd.  In alternative, if the said BSP is not acceptable to the Complainants, the Complainants shall vacate the possession of the Plot and handover the same to the OP Builder and thereafter, the OP Builder shall refund to the Complainants the deposited amount alongwith interest @9% p.a. from respective dates of deposit till 20.12.2018, i.e., the date of actual possession of the Plot.
12. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, neither the OP Builder is entitled for interest on delayed payment nor are the Complainants entitled for any compensation or damages for delayed possession of the Plot.
13. As the OP Builder has charged maximum PLC of 10% from other Allottees, in the present case also the OP Builder shall charge maximum PLC of 10% of the BSP towards both corner and sector road, from the Complainants.
14. According to Clause 12 of M.O.U., which has been relied upon by the OP Builder, the club membership fee shall not be payable by the Complainants as they have not opted for club membership facility.  However, other charges, like EDC, IDC, PLC (10% of BSP), Utility Connection Charges, Sewer Treatment Plant Charges, GST/Govt. Taxes and Stamp Charges shall be paid by the Complainants.
15. As far as the Enhanced EDC of ₹12,92,064/- is concerned, if the said amount is not deposited with the Government of Haryana, the said amount be refunded to the Complainants.
16. The OP Builder shall work out the amount payable/receivable in view of this Order and shall intimate the same to the Complainants.  If any amount remains payable by the Complainants, the said amount will be paid by the Complainants to the OP Builder within two weeks from today; and in case any amount is payable by the OP Builder, it shall be paid to the Complainants within two weeks from today.
17. After settling the accounts, the OP Builder shall execute the Conveyance Deed in respect of the Plot in question, in favour of the Complainants within four weeks.  After execution of Conveyance Deed the Complainants shall be at liberty to create any third party interest in the plot in question, if they want to do so. 

The Consumer Complaint stands disposed off in above terms.  The pending application, if any, also stands disposed off.  Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs