JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) The complainants booked a residential plot with the opposite party in a project namely “Uniworld City” which the opposite party was to develop in Sector 97, 106, 107 of Mohali in Punjab. Vide allotment letter dated 12.8.2008, Plot No. A0023 in the aforesaid project was allotted to the complainant for a consideration of Rs.1,08,81,450/-. The parties then entered into a Buyer’s Agreement dated 02.9.2008, incorporating their respective obligations in respect of the aforesaid transactions. In terms of clause 4.a (i) of the Buyer’s agreement, the possession was to be delivered within thirty six months from the date of the execution of the said agreement. The possession therefore ought to have been delivered by 02.9.2011. The grievance of the complainant is that the possession of the plot has not even been offered to her despite she having already paid a sum of Rs.1,20,43,557/- to the opposite party. The complainant therefore approached this Commission, seeking possession of the aforesaid plot, along with compensation. 2. The opposite party did not file its written version, despite service and therefore its right to file written version was closed vide order dated 04.10.2017. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have considered the affidavit filed by the complainant by way of evidence. The documents filed by the complainant, including the allotment letter dated 12.8.2008 and the Buyer’s Agreement dated 02.9.2008, fully corroborate the case set out in the complaint. 4. The learned counsel for the complainant namely Shri Yogesh Dass states on instructions that though the prayer made in the complaint is for delivery of possession of the plot with compensation, considering that the opposite party has not come forward to offer possession of the said plot during pendency of the complaint and there is no prospect of the possession being offered in immediate future, the complainant wants refund of the entire amount paid by her, along with compensation. He further states on instruction that in order to avoid any further litigation in the matter, the complainant is restricting her claim to the refund of the principal amount paid by her, along with compensation in terms of clause 4.e of the Buyer’s Agreement, which reads as under: “4.e. If for any reason the Developers are not at all in a position to offer the plot, as agreed herein, the Developers may offer the Purchaser(s) an alternative property or refund the amount in full with interest @ 10% per annum without any further liability to pay damages or any other compensation”. 5. The learned counsel for the complainant also submits that in fact this matter is covered by several previous decisions of this Commission including its decision in CC/25 of 2016 Shri Harinder Singh Vs. Unitech Ltd., decided on 19.12.2016. The order passed by this Commission in Harinder Singh’s case (Supra), to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:- “2. The complaint has been opposed by the OP which has admitted the allotment made to the complainant as well as the payment made by him. It has been stated in the written version filed by the OP that though they tried their best to hand over the possession of the plot but the project got delayed on account of reasons and circumstances beyond their control. The following, according to the OP, are the main reasons which resulted in delaying the aforesaid project: (i) There was a slump in the real estate industry. (ii) There was extreme shortage of labour/workers due to Commonwealth Games organized in 2010. (iii) There was shortage of labour on account of schemes like National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) and Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM). (iv) There was an acute shortage of water in NCR region. (v) Vide notification dated 14.09.1999, Ministry of Environment and Forest had barred excavation of soil for manufacture of bricks. (vi) There was shortage of raw materials such as sand on account of mining operations having been suspended by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 08.05.2009. It is also stated in the written version filed by the OP that in case of delay in offering possession, the purchaser is entitled to a penalty compensation of Rs.50/- per sq. yard per month of the area of the plot and therefore, the calculation of the compensation cannot exceed the said amount. 3. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the present complaint is squarely covered by the decision of this Commission in CC No. 346 of 2013 Lt. Col. Anil Raj & Anr. Vs. M/s Unitech Ltd. & Anr. decided on 02.05.2016. In Col. Anil Raj (Supra), the complainants had entered into an agreement for purchase of a plot in this very project i.e. Uniworld City in Mohali, Punjab but the OP had failed to deliver possession of the said plot within the time stipulated in the Buyers Agreement. The OP, during the course of hearing of the aforesaid complaint, expressed willingness to refund the amount deposited by the complainant alongwith interest @ 10% per annum. They were directed by this Commission to refund accordingly. The OP however, failed to comply with the said order. This Commission, considering the deficiency on the part of the OP in rendering services to the aforesaid complainant and also taking note of the conduct of the OP in not honouring its own commitment of refund alongwith interest @ 10% per annum, directed it to pay simple interest @ 18% per annum from the date of each deposit till realization. The OP was also directed to pay cost of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant and deposit Rs.2,00,000/- with the Consumer Welfare Fund of this Commission. 4. Even on merits, I find no justification for the delay in offering possession of the plot to the complainant. As far as the Commonwealth Games are concerned, they were held way back in October 2010, almost five years before the parties entered into the second Buyers Agreement. Therefore, reference to the said Games is wholly misplaced. There is absolutely no evidence of the OP having tried to recruit labourers and having not been able to do so on account shortage of labour in the market. Therefore, there is no merit in the plea that the project could not be completed on account of shortage of labour. In any case, the alleged shortage of labour refers to NCR region whereas the plot in question is stated in Mohali. As regards the alleged shortage of water, the order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 16.07.2012, the notification issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest on 14.09.1999 as well as the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 08.05.2009 suspending the mining operations in Aravali Region are concerned, all these events happened prior to the parties entering into the second Buyers Agreement dated 23.03.2015.The OP despite the aforesaid events, having agreed to deliver possession of the plot to the complainant within six months of the said Buyers Agreement, cannot take the plea that the completion of the project has been delayed on account of the aforesaid reasons. I am therefore, satisfied that there was no justification for the delay in completion of the project and offering possession to the complainant.
6. For the reasons stated hereinabove the consumer complaint is hereby disposed of with the following directions: (i) The opposite party shall refund the entire principal amount of Rs.1,20,43,557/- to the complainants, along with compensation in the form of simple interest @ 10% per annum from the date of each payment till the date of refund. (ii) The opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as the cost of litigation to the complainants. (iii) The payment in terms of this order shall be made within three months from today. | 
