(Pronounced on_13th_day of November, 2019)

R.K. AGRAWAL, J. PRESIDENT

I.A.NO.8847 OF 2019 in CC NO.2325 OF 2017

(For maintainability of Complaint)

          In view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2019 SCC Online SC 1005, wherein it has been held that remedies given to the allottees of the flats/apartments are concurrent and such allottees are in a position to avail of remedies under the Consumer Protection Act, RERA, as well as trigger the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the IA No.8847 of 2019 challenging the maintainability of CC No.2325 of 2017 on the ground of RERA is dismissed.  

FACTS OF THE COMPLAINTS

1.       All these Consumer Complaints, under Section 21(a)(i) read with Section 22 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), have been filed by the Complainants, the allottees of Residential Flats/Apartments in a project, namely, “Canary Greens” (for short “the Project”), to be developed and constructed by the Opposite Party in Sector 73, Gurgaon, Haryana, seeking injunctive relief and compensation for the losses suffered by them on account of unfair and restrictive trade practices adopted and the deficient services rendered by the Opposite Party in not handing over the possession of the allotted Flats/Apartments within the stipulated time.

2.       All the Complainants have entered into identical “Agreements to Sell’/”Flat Buyer Agreements” with the Opposite Party; the facts and question of law involved in their cases are similar, inasmuch as physical possession of the allotted Flats, has not been handed over within the committed period and almost similar reliefs have been prayed for by all the Complainants.

3.       For the sake of convenience, the material facts, enumerated hereinafter, are taken from the Consumer Complaint No.3363 of 2017 titled as Shaleen Garg Vs. Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.. The brief facts as stated in the Complaint are that the Complainant applied for allotment of an Apartment in the group housing scheme launched by M/s Today Homes and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. known as “Canary Greens” in Sector 73, Gurgaon, Haryana. On 04-11-2011 a Builder Buyer’s Agreement was executed and the Complainant was allotted an Apartment/Unit No.0001 having super area of 1640 sq. ft. in the Ground Floor of Tower No.T7 in the said complex. The total sale consideration was Rs.79,13,462/-, out of which the Complainant paid a sum of Rs.74,47,932/- to the Opposite Party. It is stated that as per Clause 21 of the Buyer’s Agreement, the Complainant was assured that the possession of the Apartment would be delivered by 04-11-2014 that is within 36 months from the date of signing of the Agreement, with a grace period of six months.

4.    It is averred that at the time of applying for the Apartment/Flat and payment of Application Money, the Buyer’s Agreement was not shown to the Allotee/Complainant. It is pleaded that despite having paid the entire amount on time and making several requests, the Opposite Party has failed to deliver the possession of the Apartment to the Complainant till the date of filing of the present Complaint. It is pleaded that as per Clause 21 of the Buyer’s Agreement, it was agreed that in case the Opposite Party is not able to hand over the possession to the Complainant within the grace period of six months, the Opposite Party shall pay to the Complainant compensation, at the rate of Rs.5/-per sq. ft. per month of the super area, for the period of delay. Further as per clause 8, of the Buyer’s Agreement, if there is any amount due from the Complainant, the Opposite Party would charge interest @ 18% p.a. on the said amount. It is pleaded that the buyers are suffering from tremendous financial losses as they are forced to live in rented  accommodations; pay EMIs without getting the benefit of the flat; suffer from loss of rental only on account of the conduct of the Opposite Party of not delivering the possession within the promised time period, which squarely falls within the ambit of definition of deficiency of services and unfair trade practices as defined under the Consumer Protection Act 1986, and hence Complainant deserves to be adequately compensated.  

5.       It is pleaded that the Complainant has lost all faith in the project of the Opposite Party; the semi constructed building of the above project in which the house of the Complainant is being constructed has been lying in an abandoned condition; the skeleton building  has been exposed to extreme weather conditions and has lost its strength and value; it has deteriorated as it is lying in a shell form for several years and there are chances that it would collapse soon as the structure is not complete and is exposed to vagaries of nature; the Complainant does not now wish to reside in such a  defective building even if the Opposite Party delivers the possession of the same to them in the near future. Hence, the Complainants seek for refund of the money along with the interest @ 18% p.a., by way of damages and compensation to enable them to purchase another house.

6.     The Opposite Party has miserably failed to comply with its contractual obligations of handing over possession of the subject apartment in “Canary Greens”, and even after several months, they have not completed the entire construction work, which clearly is an act of “deficiency in service” on the part of the Opposite Party and as the Complainant has suffered a lot of mental harassment and agony at the hands of the Opposite Party she is entitled to be adequately compensated.

7.       Hence, it is pleaded that  for the delay committed by Opposite Party, they should be made liable to pay interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of each deposit till its actual realization which amounts to Rs.72,09,671/-. Hence, the Complainant approached this Commission seeking direction to the Opposite Party to refund the sum of Rs.74,47,932/- paid towards sale consideration together  with  interest @ 18% p.a. on the said amount from the date of each deposit till it is actually returned, amounting to Rs.72,09,671/- and Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental agony and costs of litigation.

8.       Upon notice, the Complaint has been contested by the Opposite Party, Developer, raising preliminary issues that (i) the Complainants are not “Consumers” as defined in Section 2(1) (d) of the Act, 1986 as the amount has been invested by them in the project for commercial purpose; (ii) this Hon’ble Commission lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint as the value of the flat is less than Rs.1,00,00,000/-; (iii) it is well settled law that for the purpose of determination of pecuniary jurisdiction, only the valuation of the subject matter of the Complaint is to be considered and further benefits claimed, such as compensation and interest are not to be taken into account; (iv) as per the provisions contained in the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (for short, the “RERA”), the said project is covered under the definition of an “Ongoing Project” for which the Developer had already filed its application for registration of its Project before Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority; (v) the Developer has been made responsible for completing and giving possession of the Apartments in its ongoing Project “Canary Greens” in terms of its registration with RERA; (vii) that with the coming into force of the RERA on 01-05-2017, this Commission is precluded from dealing with the grievances of customers in relation to ongoing projects; (viii) that the dispute deserves to be referred to Arbitration as per Arbitration Clause No.38 of the Agreement to Sell dated 04-11-2011 duly signed by both the parties and can be adjudicated only by the Arbitrator so appointed, under Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017; (ix) that the present Complaint is premature as the period of delivery of 36 months is not sacrosanct because the delay in any event is attributable to Force Majeure events as explained under Clause 21 of the Agreement to Sell dated 04-11-2011; (x) the Opposite Party has pleaded that as per the construction linked plan the Complainant did not adhere to the payment schedule and continuously delayed the payment of instalments despite giving several reminders, letters and demand notices; (xi) that as per Clause 8 of the Agreement to Sell, in case of non-payment of instalments for more than 60 days, the Agreement shall stand cancelled without any intimation to the Complainant; (xii) that there is still a considerable amount outstanding which is left to be cleared by the Complainant for their respective flats, which they are trying to escape by filing a false and frivolous litigation.

9.       Attributing the delay to the force majeure conditions, the Opposite Party contended that in terms of Clauses 21 & 22 of the Agreement to Sell, any dispute with the construction agency employed by the Opposite Party resulting in delay was to be treated as force majeure event and, in such view, the Opposite Party was entitled to reasonable extension of time. Due to dispute of the Opposite Party with the earlier contractor, who was appointed to complete civil and other work at the site, the work had been seriously hampered and the contractor abandoned the work at project site which lead to delay in the execution of the project in time, which is beyond the control of the Opposite Party. As a result of the continuous delay and non-mobilization of the work force and non-completion of work in time, the Opposite Party terminated the contract with the first contractor and a new contractor was appointed to complete the project. There was an inadvertent delay in completion of the project, which was duly intimated to the Complainant. Another factor, which resulted in delay, was the closure of brick kilns due to the norms of procuring permission from Ministry of Environment & Forest, which resulted in non availability of the raw material. As such, the delay which has occurred on account of dispute with the contractor and non-availability of raw material is liable to be excluded from the total period as envisaged in Clause 22 of the Agreement to Sell.

10.     On merits, it was, inter-alia, pleaded that the license for the project “Canary Greens” was in the name of M/s. New India City Developers Pvt. Ltd. from whom the Opposite Party purchased the development rights for construction, marketing and selling of the project on its own without any reference to the licensee company and land owners. The Complainant, who is basically an investor has booked the Apartment in the project after fully analysing the feasibility of their investment keeping in mind the commercial benefit out of it in the form of return. The delay in handing over the possession of the flat has occurred due to default on the part of the Complainant in timely making the payments; the Complainant did not adhere to the payment schedule and despite giving several reminders/demand notices, continuously delayed the payment of instalments; if the Complainant had made timely payment of the instalments, the construction would have continued, as timely payment of instalments was linked to the construction of the unit. The Opposite Party had explained all the terms & conditions of the allotment to the Complainant at the time of payment of application money and the Complainant has signed the agreement out of their free will and after fully analysing the terms of the agreement.

11.     The period of 36 months as mentioned in Clause 21 of the Agreement to Sell dated 04-11-2011 is not sacrosanct as in the said clause it is clearly stated that the physical possession of the said unit is proposed to be delivered by the Opposite Party to the allottee within 36 months and, therefore, the Opposite Party was not under an obligation to handover the physical possession of the unit, complete in all respects, within 36 months from the date of Builder Buyers Agreement. That time is not essence of the contract and the delay, in any event, is attributable to force majeure events and would at best entitle the Allottees to delay compensation as per the contract for the period excluding the period of delay due to force majeure events. The Opposite Party had a dispute with the contractor, which is a matter of record, resulting in delay which was to be treated as force majeure event and the Opposite Party was entitled to a reasonable extension of time on this count. Similarly, another force majeure event which resulted in the delay was the closure of brick kilns due to the norms procuring permission from Ministry of Environment & Forest, which was beyond the control of the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party was entitled to extension of time for the same. The Opposite Party has also denied that the semi constructed building of the project is lying in abandoned and shell form and is exposed to vagaries of nature and is prone to collapse. It is further contended that the Complainant has entered into the agreement to purchase the unit in question after fully analyzing the profitability of the investment, but due to sluggish growth in the real estate sector, Complainant has been raising the false and frivolous issues to pressurise the Opposite Party to succumb to their unjust demands. The terms & conditions of the Builder Buyers Agreement were duly explained at the time of allotment and the same was signed by the Complainant out of her free will and after fully analysing the terms of the agreement. It is submitted that as per clause 21 of the Agreement to Sell, the Allottee shall not claim any compensation/damage against the Opposite Party on account of delay in handing over possession due to force majeure events. There is still a considerable amount outstanding which is left to be cleared by the Allottees for their respective flats, which they are trying to escape by filing a false and frivolous litigation.

12.     All other averments made in the Complaint were specifically denied by the Opposite Party and prayed dismissal of the Complaint with exemplary costs. The Complainant filed its Rejoinder denying all the rival contentions raised by the Opposite Party in its Reply and reiterating the averments made in the Complaint.   

13.     The Complainant has filed Affidavit by way of Evidence and Exhibits marked on their behalf are:  A copy of the Agreement to Sell dated 04-11-2011 marked as EX CW1/A and A copy of details of payment made by the Complainant marked as EX CW1/B.

14.     The exhibits marked on behalf of Opposite Party are:- A copy of the Board Resolution dated 01-2-2018 marked as EX OP-1; A copy of the demand notices dated 26-08-2011, 27-01-2012, 22-06-2012, 03-09-2012, 30-01-2013, 22-07-2013, 25-02-2014 and 12-03-2015 served upon the Complainant annexed as EX OP-2; A copy of the office Memorandum dated 24-06-2013 along with article printed in The Tribune exhibited as EX OP-3.

15.     The brief point that falls for consideration in this Complaint is whether there was any deficiency of service on behalf of the Opposite Party and if the Complainant is entitled to the amount prayed for in the Complaint?

16.     In brief, it is the Complainant’s case that despite paying an amount of Rs.74,47,932/- out of the total sale consideration of Rs.79,13,462/- for Apartment/Unit No.0001 having super area of 1640 sq. ft. in the Ground Floor of Tower No.T7 and executing the Agreement to Sell on 04.11.2011, with the promised date of delivery being 04.11.2014,  till date,  the Opposite Party did not complete the construction nor offered possession, nor paid any amount towards  delayed delivery and hence seek for refund of the amount paid with interest @ 18% p.a., together with compensation and costs.

17.     The first contention of the learned counsel for the Opposite Party that the Complainant is not “Consumer” and only “investor” is not supported by any documentary evidence. As laid down by this Commission in a catena of judgments that the onus of proof shifts to the Opposite Party to prove that the Complainant is “investor” and it is observed that the Opposite Party did not discharge their onus of proof regarding this aspect. Hence it is held that the Complainant is a “Consumer” as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The second contention of the Opposite Party that this Commission does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint is unsustainable in the light of the larger bench decision of this Commission in “Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Private Limited [CC/97/2016 & allied matters decided on 07.10.2016]”, wherein it was held that pecuniary jurisdiction should be construed keeping in view the total value of goods and services in addition to the compensation prayed for. In the instant case admittedly the Complainant paid an amount of Rs.74,47,932/- and has sought for damages by way of interest @ 18% p.a., compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and other reliefs which totals to beyond Rupees One Crore and definitely attracts the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. The stand taken by the Opposite Party that the period of delivery of 36 months as defined in clause 21 is not sacrosanct as it is stated in the said clause that “physical possession of the said unit is proposed to be delivered by the Company to the allottee within 36 months” and, therefore, time is not the essence of the contract and the delay is attributable to force majure events, and, therefore, no deficiency of service can be attributed to them, is totally unsustainable, as the Opposite Party could not substantiate by means of any documentary evidence  that the project was hit by force majure events. Except for stating that there were disputes with the contractors and non availability of raw material, which viewed from any angle, cannot be construed to be a “force majure event”, the Opposite Party has not filed any material on record to prove that there were any force majure events beyond their control. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party vehemently argued that the Complainant delayed the payments and did not pay as per the Construction Linked Payment Plan and, therefore, the construction was delayed and the Complainant cannot take advantage of his own wrong doing, that the construction itself is not complete,  this submission of the Opposite Party is not relevant to the facts and circumstances of the case, especially when it is seen from the record that out of the total sale consideration of Rs.79,13,462/-, the Complainants  have already paid an amount  of  Rs.74,47,932/-.

18.     No material has been produced by the Opposite Party to prove that the completion of construction and offer of possession has been delayed on account of reasons beyond its control; there is no justification for the said delay. Keeping in view the judgment of this Commission in Emmar MGF Land Ltd. & Ors.  vs. Amit Puri [II (2015) CPJ 568 NC], wherein it was laid down 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, it is held that it is well within the Complainant’s right to seek for refund of the principal amount with interest and compensation as construction is still not complete. We are of the view that the Complainant cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the delivery of possession and the act of the Opposite Party in relying on force majure clause while retaining the amounts deposited by the Complainant, 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 the Opposite Party charges interest @ 18% p.a. for any delay in the payments made by the flat purchasers, but at the same time, offers compensation of Rs.5/- per sq. ft.  per month of the super area for the period of delay, which approximately amounts to only 1.5% per annum. We are of the view that 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. 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.”

          For all the aforenoted reasons, this judgments squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of this case.

19.     We find it a fit case to 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.”

20.     In the instant case also the Complainant cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of the unit, as the construction is yet to be completed. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Complainant is entitled for refund of the principal amount with reasonable interest.

21.     Now, we address ourselves to the percentage of interest that has to be awarded to meet the ends of justice.

22.     In the light of the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments awarding interest keeping in view the current market situation and that the Banks have lowered the interest rates and considering the recent downtrend in the rates of interest and the erosion in the values of real estate in the market, we are of the opinion that awarding interest @ 18% p.a. as prayed for by the Complainant is on the higher side and hold that the Complainant is entitled to the refund of the amount deposited by her with interest @ 12% p.a. from the respective dates of deposits till the date of realization. It is relevant to note that this interest @ 12% p.a. is being awarded to meet the ends of justice specially keeping in view the fact that most of the Complainants, have taken housing loans paying EMIs with interest rates ranging from 10.25% to 12% p.a.; Clause 8 of the Agreement which entitles the Opposite Party to collect interest @ 18% p.a. on delayed payments; the loss of opportunity of the Complainant for not having been able to enjoy the fruit of owning a ‘Home’ and finally taking into consideration the principal of restitutio in integrum which specifies that the aggrieved person should necessarily be compensated for the financial loss suffered due to the event and get that sum of money which would put him/her in the same position as he would have been if he/she had not sustained the wrong. Hence, we are of the view that awarding interest @ 12% p.a. is not only reasonable but also justified.

23.     Hence, this Complaint is allowed in part directing the Opposite Party to refund the principal amount with interest @ 12% p.a.  from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the Complainant. Time for compliance, four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall attract interest @ 14% p.a., for the same period.

Consumer Complaint No.3364 of 2017

24.     Vikram Jain booked a residential Flat No.0103, Floor 01, Tower-T7 of 1640 sq. ft. and entered into a Builder Buyer Agreement on 19.09.2011, paying a total amount of Rs.59,59,261/- and the promised date of delivery  was 19.09.2014. For all the aforenoted reasons in Consumer Complaint No.3363 of 2017, this Complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Party is directed to refund the amounts paid with interest @ 12 % p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to  the Complainant. Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall attract interest @ 14% p.a. for the same period.

Consumer Complaint No.3365 of 2017

25.     Prem Chand Gupta and Anjana Gupta booked a residential Flat No.1002, Floor 10, Tower- T2 of 1640 sq. ft. and entered into a Builder Buyer Agreement on 27.03.2012, paying a total amount of Rs.50,83,044/- and the promised date of delivery  was 27.03.2015. For all the aforenoted reasons in Consumer Complaint No.3363 of 2017, this Complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Party is directed to refund the amounts paid with interest @ 12 % p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to each of the Complainants. Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall attract interest @ 14% p.a. for the same period.

Consumer Complaint No.3366 of 2017

26.     Arun Tayal and Priti Tayal booked a residential Flat No.0702, Floor 07, Tower- T6 of 1640 sq. ft. and entered into a Builder Buyer Agreement on 23.08.2012, paying a total amount of Rs.64,85,581/-  and the promised date of delivery was 23.08.2015. For all the reasons noted in Consumer Complaint No.3363 of 2017, this Complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Party is directed to refund the amounts paid with interest @ 12 % p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.₹25,000/- to be paid to each of the Complainants. Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall attract interest @ 14% p.a. for the same period.

Consumer Complaint No.3367 of 2017

27.     Adam Malhotra booked a residential Flat No.1101, Floor 11, Tower- T5 of 1640 sq. ft. and entered into a Builder Buyer Agreement on 11.10.2011, paying a total amount of Rs.62,05,421/- and the promised date of delivery  was 11.10.2014. For all the aforenoted reasons in Consumer Complaint No.3363 of 2017, this Complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Party is directed to refund the amounts paid with interest @ 12 % p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the Complainant. Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall attract interest @ 14% p.a. for the same period.

Consumer Complaint No.3368 of 2017

28.     Abeer Ghai booked a residential Flat No.0903, Floor 09, Tower – T5 of 1640 sq. ft. and entered into a Builder Buyer Agreement on 07.06.2011, paying a total amount of Rs.61,82,934/-and the promised date of delivery was 07.06.2014. For all the aforenoted reasons in Consumer Complaint No.3363 of 2017, this Complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Party is directed to refund the amounts paid with interest @ 12 % p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.25,000/-  to be paid to the Complainant. Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall attract interest @ 14% p.a. for the same period.

Consumer Complaint No.3369 of 2017

29.     Aartee Roy booked a residential Flat No.602, Floor 6, Tower- T1 of 1275 sq. ft. and entered into a Builder Buyer Agreement on 20.07.2011, paying a total amount of Rs.48,10,454/- and the promised date of delivery was 20.07.2014. For all the reasons noted in Consumer Complaint No.3363 of 2017, this Complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Party is directed to refund the amounts paid with interest @ 12 % p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the Complainant. Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall attract interest @ 14% p.a. for the same period.

Consumer Complaint No.3370 of 2017

30.     Dheeraj Chawla and Kamlesh Chawla booked a residential Flat No.0204, Floor 02, Tower- T6 of 1640 sq. ft. and entered into a Builder Buyer Agreement on 13.06.2011, paying a total amount of Rs.66,52,246/- and the promised date of delivery  was 13.06.2014. For all the aforenoted reasons in Consumer Complaint No.3363 of 2017, this Complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Party is directed to refund the amounts paid with interest @ 12 % p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to each of the Complainants. Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall attract interest @ 14% p.a. for the same period.

Consumer Complaint No.3371 of 2017

31.     Sunaina Veerapaneni booked a residential Flat No.0102, Floor 01, Tower-T6 of 1640 sq. ft. and entered into a Builder Buyer Agreement on 13.06.2011, paying a total amount of Rs.70,97,954/- and the promised date of delivery  was 13.06.2014. For all the aforenoted reasons in Consumer Complaint No.3363 of 2017, this Complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Party is directed to refund the amounts paid with interest @ 12 % p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the Complainant. Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall attract interest @ 14% p.a. for the same period.

Consumer Complaint No.3372 of 2017

32.     Sajal Gupta and Prem Chand Gupta booked a residential Flat No.1103, Floor 11, Tower- T1 of 1275 sq. ft. and entered into a Builder Buyer Agreement on 20.07.2011, paying a total amount of Rs.49,32,623/- and the promised date of delivery was 20.07.2014. For all the aforenoted reasons in Consumer Complaint No.3363 of 2017, this Complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Party is directed to refund the amounts paid with interest @ 12 % p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to each of the Complainant. Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall attract interest @ 14% p.a. for the same period.

Consumer Complaint No.3373 of 2017

33.     Rati Gupta booked a residential Flat No.0602, Floor 06, Tower- T8 of 1640 sq. ft. and entered into an Builder Buyer Agreement on 31.03.2012, paying a total amount of Rs.57,75,632/- and the promised date of delivery  was 31.03.2015. For all the reasons noted in Consumer Complaint No.3363 of 2017, this Complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Party is directed to refund the amounts paid with interest @ 12 % p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the Complainant. Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall attract interest @ 14% p.a. for the same period.

Consumer Complaint No.3374 of 2017

34.     Ritu Chaudhary booked a residential Flat No.1401, Floor 14, Tower- T3 of 1640 sq. ft. and entered into an Builder Buyer Agreement on 06.06.2011, paying a total amount of Rs.54,25,390/- and the promised date of delivery  was 06.06.2014. For all the reasons noted in Consumer Complaint No.3363 of 2017, this Complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Party is directed to refund the amounts paid with interest @ 12 % p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the Complainant. Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall attract interest @ 14% p.a. for the same period.

Consumer Complaint No.3375 of 2017

35.     Anoop Pandey and Anjula Pandey booked a residential Flat No.0903, Floor 09, Tower- T8 of 1640 sq. ft. and entered into an Builder Buyer Agreement on 28.12.2011, paying a total amount of Rs.55,67,881/- and the promised date of delivery was 28.12.2014. For all the reasons noted in Consumer Complaint No.3363 of 2017, this Complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Party is directed to refund the amounts paid with interest @ 12 % p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to each of the Complainant. Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall attract interest @ 14% p.a. for the same period.

Consumer Complaint No.3376 of 2017

36.     Ved Prakash Grover and Mridul Grover booked a residential Flat No.1103, Floor 11, Tower- T3 of 1940 sq. ft. and entered into an Builder Buyer Agreement on 27.09.2011, paying a total amount of Rs.59,39,176/- and the promised date of delivery was 27.09.2014. For all the reasons noted in Consumer Complaint No.3363 of 2017, this Complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Party is directed to refund the amounts paid with interest @ 12 % p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to each of the Complainant. Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall attract interest @ 14% p.a. for the same period.

Consumer Complaint No.3377 of 2017

37.     Mahindra Kumar Sethi and Pushp Lata Sethi booked a residential Flat No.0402, Floor 04, Tower- T5 of 1640 sq. ft. and entered into an Builder Buyer Agreement on 15.07.2011, paying a total amount of Rs.61,40,971/- and the promised date of delivery was 15.07.2014. For all the reasons noted in Consumer Complaint No.3363 of 2017, this Complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Party is directed to refund the amounts paid with interest @ 12 % p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to each of the Complainant. Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall attract interest @ 14% p.a. for the same period.

Consumer Complaint No.3378 of 2017

38.     Sarot Bishnoi and Samit Bishnoi booked a residential Flat No.0803, Floor 08, Tower- T2 of 1940 sq. ft. and entered into an Builder Buyer Agreement on 04.08.2012, paying a total amount of Rs.72,61,730/- and the promised date of delivery  was 04.08.2015. For all the reasons noted in Consumer Complaint No.3363 of 2017, this Complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Party is directed to refund the amounts paid with interest @ 12 % p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to each of the Complainant. Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall attract interest @ 14% p.a. for the same period.

Consumer Complaint No.3380 of 2017

39.     Nidhi Mathur booked a residential Flat No.1004, Floor 10, Tower- T2 of 1940 sq. ft. and entered into an Builder Buyer Agreement on 21.12.2011, paying a total amount of Rs.60,61,558/- and the promised date of delivery was 21.12.2014. For all the reasons noted in Consumer Complaint No.3363 of 2017, this Complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Party is directed to refund the amounts paid with interest @ 12 % p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the Complainant. Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall attract interest @ 14% p.a. for the same period.

Consumer Complaint No.3381 of 2017

40.     Gaurav Jain booked a residential Flat No.0901, Floor 09, Tower- T5 of 1640 sq. ft. and entered into an Builder Buyer Agreement on 30.09.2011, paying a total amount of Rs.64,53,911/- and the promised date of delivery  was 30.09.2014. For all the reasons noted in Consumer Complaint No.3363 of 2017, this Complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Party is directed to refund the amounts paid with interest @ 12 % p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the Complainant. Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall attract interest @ 14% p.a. for the same period.

Consumer Complaint No.3382 of 2017

41.     Prem Chand Anand and Ranjana Anand booked a residential Flat No.1204, Floor 12, Tower- T3 of 1940 sq. ft. and entered into an Builder Buyer Agreement on 03.08.2011, paying a total amount of Rs.61,51,912/- and the promised date of delivery was 03.08.2014. For all the reasons noted in Consumer Complaint No.3363 of 2017, this Complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Party is directed to refund the amounts paid with interest @ 12 % p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to each of the Complainant. Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall attract interest @ 14% p.a. for the same period.

Consumer Complaint No.3383 of 2017

42.     Anita Yadav booked a residential Flat No.0803, Floor 08, Tower- T6 of 1640 sq. ft. and entered into an Builder Buyer Agreement on 04.10.2011, paying a total amount of Rs.63,68,545/- and the promised date of delivery was 04.10.2014. For all the reasons noted in Consumer Complaint No.3363 of 2017, this Complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Party is directed to refund the amounts paid with interest @ 12 % p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the Complainant. Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall attract interest @ 14% p.a. for the same period.

Consumer Complaint No.3384 of 2017

43.     Jaya Gupta booked a residential Flat No.0703, Floor 07, Tower- T5 of 1640 sq. ft. and entered into an Builder Buyer Agreement on 07.06.2011, paying a total amount of Rs.61,41,152/- and the promised date of delivery was 07.06.2014. For all the reasons noted in Consumer Complaint No.3363 of 2017, this Complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Party is directed to refund the amounts paid with interest @ 12 % p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the Complainant. Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall attract interest @ 14% p.a. for the same period.

Consumer Complaint No.3385 of 2017

44.     Vaibhav Ghai booked a residential Flat No.1101, Floor 11, Tower- T8 of 1940 sq. ft. and entered into an Builder Buyer Agreement on 14.07.2012, paying a total amount of Rs.61,60,719/- and the promised date of delivery was 14.07.2015. For all the reasons noted in Consumer Complaint No.3363 of 2017, this Complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Party is directed to refund the amounts paid with interest @ 12 % p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the Complainant. Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall attract interest @ 14% p.a. for the same period.

Consumer Complaint No.3386 of 2017

45.     Raminder Singh Bedi booked a residential Flat No.0101, Floor 01, Tower- T5 of 1640 sq. ft. and entered into an Builder Buyer Agreement on 30.06.2011, paying a total amount of Rs.64,77,765/- and the promised date of delivery was 30.06.2014. For all the reasons noted in Consumer Complaint No.3363 of 2017, this Complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Party is directed to refund the amounts paid with interest @ 12 % p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the Complainant. Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall attract interest @ 14% p.a. for the same period.

Consumer Complaint No.3387 of 2017

46.     Kunal Sood and Ruhi Khanna booked a residential Flat No.1503, Floor 15, Tower- T2 of 1940 sq. ft. and entered into an Builder Buyer Agreement on 26.07.2011, paying a total amount of Rs.61,32,649/- and the promised date of delivery was 26.07.2014. For all the reasons noted in Consumer Complaint No.3363 of 2017, this Complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Party is directed to refund the amounts paid with interest @ 12 % p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to each of the Complainants. Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall attract interest @ 14% p.a. for the same period.

Consumer Complaint No.3388 of 2017

47.     Gaurav Agarwal and Nidhi Agarwal booked a residential Flat No.1203, Floor 12, Tower- T6 of 1640 sq. ft. and entered into an Builder Buyer Agreement on 26.05.2012, paying a total amount of Rs.65,61,799/- and the promised date of delivery was 26.05.2015. For all the reasons noted in Consumer Complaint No.3363 of 2017, this Complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Party is directed to refund the amounts paid with interest @ 12 % p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to each of the Complainants. Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall attract interest @ 14% p.a. for the same period.

Consumer Complaint No.3389 of 2017

48.     Rajesh Kumar Batra booked a residential Flat No.0103, Floor 01, Tower- T8 of 1640 sq. ft. and entered into an Builder Buyer Agreement on 30.06.2011, paying a total amount of Rs.55,25,483/- and the promised date of delivery was 30.06.2014. For all the reasons noted in Consumer Complaint No.3363 of 2017, this Complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Party is directed to refund the amounts paid with interest @ 12 % p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the  Complainant. Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall attract interest @ 14% p.a. for the same period.

Consumer Complaint No.2325 of 2017

49.     Devender Kumar and Bimla Devi booked a residential Flat No.03, Floor 9, Tower- T2 of 1940 sq. ft. and entered into an Builder Buyer Agreement on 26.11.2012, paying a total amount of Rs.63,06,617/- and the promised date of delivery was 26.11.2015. For all the reasons noted in Consumer Complaint No.3363 of 2017, this Complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Party is directed to refund the amounts paid with interest @ 12 % p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to each of the Complainants. Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall attract interest @ 14% p.a. for the same period.

Consumer Complaint No.3773 of 2017

50.     Kushal Gupta booked a residential Flat No.1502, Floor 15, Tower- T3 of 1640 sq. ft. and entered into an Builder Buyer Agreement on 08.12.2011, paying a total amount of Rs.52,18,926/- and the promised date of delivery was 08.12.2014. For all the reasons noted in Consumer Complaint No.3363 of 2017, this Complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Party is directed to refund the amounts paid with interest @ 12 % p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the  Complainant. Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall attract interest @ 14% p.a. for the same period.

Consumer Complaint No.3774 of 2017

51.     Puneet Kumar and Anil Goel booked a residential Flat No.1103, Floor 11, Tower- T8 of 1640 sq. ft. and entered into an Builder Buyer Agreement on 10.12.2011, paying a total amount of Rs.51,74,953/- and the promised date of delivery was 10.12.2014. For all the reasons noted in Consumer Complaint No.3363 of 2017, this Complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Party is directed to refund the amounts paid with interest @ 12 % p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to each of the Complainants. Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall attract interest @ 14% p.a. for the same period.

Consumer Complaint No. 196 of 2018

52.     Rajesh Gupta booked a residential Flat No.0501, Floor 05, Tower- T7 of 1640 sq. ft. and entered into an Builder Buyer Agreement on 18.06.2011, paying a total amount of Rs.72,07,717/- and the promised date of delivery was 18.06.2014. For all the reasons noted in Consumer Complaint No.3363 of 2017, this Complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Party is directed to refund the amounts paid with interest @ 12 % p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the  Complainant. Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall attract interest @ 14% p.a. for the same period.

53.     The Complaints stand disposed of.

54.     Before parting, we may make it clear that the interest @12% p.a. on the refund of the amount which has been awarded as compensation and not factually as interest on refund and, therefore, there is no question of deducting any tax on source.