In the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly, At Chinsurah.

Case No. CC/96/2020.

Date of filing: 23/12/2020.                     Date of Final Order: 15/05/2024.

Miss Rituparna Basu

Daughter of Shri Narayan Chandra Basu,

Resident of 484/A, 2 no. basudevpur,

Triveni, P.O-Tribeni, P.S-Mogra,

Dist-Hooghly, Pin-712503.                                                                   -Complainant.

          Vs        -

1. SPL Estates Private Limited

Lakshmi Neela Rite Choice Chamber New No.9,

Bazulla Road, T.Nagar, Police Station, R 4, T Nagar,

P.O-Sivagnanam Road, Pondy Bazaar,

Corporate Address-Level-7, Block-B,. “Victoria Park”,

Block GN, Plot 37/2 Sector V, Salt Lake, P.O-Nabadiganta,

P.S-salt Lake Electronic Complex, Sctor V, Kolkata-700091.

2. BENGAL SHRIRAM HI-TECH CITY PRIVATE LIMITED.

Registered Office-40/43 Nagashree Chambers, 8^th Main,

Corporate Address-Level-7, Block-B, “Victoria Park”Block GN,

Plot 37/2 Sector V, Salt Lake, P.O-Nabadiganta,

P.S-salt Lake Electronic Complex, Sector V, Kolkata-700091.

                                                                                                            …..opposite parties

Before:            President, Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay.        

                         Member, Babita Chaudhuri.

FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT

Presented by:-

Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay,  President.

Brief fact of this case:-  This case has been filed U/s. 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the complainant stating that the complainant invoked contact with the op no. 1 disclosing her desire to purchase a residential flat within the project known in the name and style as “Sunshine one” and the negotiation was initiated between the op no. 1 and complainant and during negotiations it came to the light that Bengal Shriram Hi-Tech City Private Limited, the op no. 2 the owner of the land over which the project is being raised and the op no. 1 is the constituted attorney of the owner and the op no. 2 is made a party in this lis and further during the negotiation the complainant was proposed by op no. 1 to purchase a flat on the fifth floor of Tower 2B being residential apartment no. 2B-5-D having a super built up area of 630 sq.ft., built up area of 464.4 sq.ft. and carpet area of 400 sq.ft. and exclusive balcony having an area of 10.8 sq.ft. along with an exclusive, perpetual, transferable and heritable right to park a vehicle in one designated parking space together with undivided proportionate right to use the common areas and facilities and together with proportionate, undivided, indivisible, impartial share in project Sunshine One land and the op no. 1 proposed a total consideration price of Rs. 19,54,480/-  only for the flat and parking space and the complainant contemplated the offer and accepted the same.

On the basis of the direction of the op no. 1, the complainant made an application and again on the basis of the direction of the op no. 1 the complainant paid and op no. 1 received a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in two phases (firstly Rs. 18,000/- and thereafter Rs. 32,000/-) as booking amount and the complainant on the basis of the direction of the op no. 1 put in her signatures on a number of documents and the complainant was influenced by the words of the op no. 1 and developed a trust towards the op no. 1 and the complainant was not provided  a proper opportunity to go through the contents of various documents handed over to the complainant far to say of seeking legal advice and the complainant put her signature on the basis of the words of the op no. 1 and the on 28.2.2020 an allotment letter was issued by the op no. 1 with regard to the property described in the schedule below from which it would be evident that the sale price for the property described in the schedule below comes to Rs. 19,54,480/- only, the agreement value comes to Rs. 21,12,520/- only and application money has been received as Rs. 50,000/- only.

On 4.3.2020 the complainant was issued a reminder letter vide email by the op no. 1 wherein the complainant was to pay a sum of Rs. 48,202/- and it was further stated in the said letter that the op no. 1 have prepared the sale agreement in line with the West Bengal Housing Industry Regulation Bill 2017 and that Bengal Sriram is fully aware with all new laws applicable to the industry and in the line to the same the complainant was informed that registration of agreement is mandatory before 10% payment as per WBHIRA and hence the complainant was urged to come forward to register the agreement and the op no. 1 insisted the complainant to enter into an agreement for sale and the op no. 1 sent a query slip dt. 10.3.2020 pertaining to an agreement for sale without possession of the office of ADSR Uttarpara, Hooghly relating to the property described in the schedule below. It appears from the said query slip dt. 10.3.2020 that the applicant was one Sanjukta Ray, being ld. Advocate and the query slip revealed that the complainant was to make payment of a sum of Rs. 39,110/- only as a stamp duty and Rs.21/- as registration fees.  Again on the basis of the direction of the OP-1 the complainant deposited the said amount of Rs.39131/- (Rs.21/- + Rs.39110/-) through her debit card and e-challan was issued by the Directorate of Registration and Stamp Revenue, Govt. of West Bengal.  The OP-1 vide email dated 10.3.2020 addressed to the complainant asked the complainant to make payment of the above stated amounts and attached the query of assessment slip with regard to the agreement for sale and allocated 28.3.2020 for registration of the agreement for sale at the office of the OP-1 being marketing office, Shriram Grand city, Dankuni near Delhi Road crossing on commission.  The OP-1 also asked the complainant to carry documents, photographs and e-challan of the stamp duty paid.  No copy of the agreement for sale was supplied to the complainant.  On enquiry by the complainant the OP-1 stated that the same is being prepared by Ld. Advocate of the OP-1 and everything would be properly looked after and asked the complainant to have faith and trust upon the OP-1. Again on 19.3.2020 the OP issued a payment reminder letter to the complainant and therein demanded a sum of Rs.95770/- only and also informed about the WBHIRA Regulations.

It be mentioned here that the complainant on 10.3.2020 paid and the OP-1 received an amount of Rs.47724/- only.  On 24.3.2020 the complainant paid and the OP-1 received a sum of Rs.95770/- only as part consideration for the property described in the schedule below.  A sum of Rs.1935/- only as GST and further Rs.15000/- only as legal fees alongwith GST of Rs.150/- only was paid to the OP-1 by the complainant as per direction and the OP-1 also received the same and on and from 25.3.2020 country wide lock down was imposed due to pandemic of Covid19 virus.  It would be mentioned herein that the complainant was not in a position to secure the total consideration out of her own funds and as such she decided to avail loan facility.  The OP-1 was in the knowhow of this fact.  Due to the invocation of the lock down, the complainant could not take measures to reach out to financial institutions/banks to avail loan facility for making payments and to the utter astonishment of the complainant, the OP-1 during this pandemic situation started pressurizing the complainant to make payments of further consideration money.  The complainant explained to theOP-1 and reminded the OP-1 of her economic disability and current situation prevailing world wide which barred her from stepping out of her home to avail financial help.  On 19.5.2020 the OP-1 issued an alleged 3^rd reminder of payment of outstanding amount to the complainant and therein demanded Rs.199377/- only immediately and also demanded for interest of Rs.2661/- only and that the same is increasing at the rate of Rs.388/- only per week for delay.

The OP-1 did not budge nor gave any sympathetic and reasonable understanding to the constraints faced by the complainant.  Utmost pressure was invoked by the Op-1 upon the complainant to make payment and to enter into registered agreement.  The complainant all along stated to the OP-1 that at that juncture of pandemic situation she was not in a position to pursue with any agreement.  Be that as it may,. On 25.5.2020 the staff of the OP-1 came to the house of the complainant at Tribeni, Hooghly in a motor bike and made her sign on an agreement for sale which now appears to be containing 42 pages without giving her an opportunity to go through the same far to speak of seeking legal advice over the same.  No copy of the said agreement at that point of time was handed over to the complainant.  On 28.5.2020 the complainant received a SMS in her mobile from the OP-1 stating that “Dear Customer, we regret non payment of dues at Sriram Grand City-Sunshine One.  Since the due date is already over please pay immediately.  Ignore, if paid.  Thanks team customer Care-Bengal Sriram”.  The complainant states herein that this demand on part of the OP-1 is illegal and clearly brings out commission of unfair trade practice and not providing proper service as envisaged in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

On 2.6.2020 the complainant vide email addressed to the OP-1 cancelled and withdrew from making purchase of the property described  in the schedule below.  The complainant asked of the OP-1 to refund Rs.210579/- only paid to the OP-1 in connection to the property described in the schedule below.  The complainant also asked the OP-1 to send notice of cancellation so that she can pursue for receiving back stamp duty from the relevant authorities.  The complainant also stated in the said cancellation notice that she received mail letters for payment relating to outstanding payment due on 6.5.2020 and 19.5.2020.  It be further mentioned that in letter dated 19.5.2020 it was stated as a “third payment reminder letter”and that the 2^nd is told to have issued on 18.4.2020 which the complainant never received.  The complainant states that she received on SMS with regard to non-payment of dues on 28.5.2020 as mentioned above. The complainant also denied the contents of the said letter and SMS.  The complainant categorically stated that the OP-1 in the said letter demanded certain amount but no such sum of money are legally due by the complainant to the OP-1 on account of the said apartment.

On 3.6.2020 the OP-1 had sent an email to the complainant requesting reconsideration of cancellation if the situation gets better.  On 7.6.2020 the complainant requested the OP-1 that she is going for cancellation on account of bad financial state at that moment and so she requested for refund.  On 11.6.2020  the OP-1 send email having acknowledged the email of the complainant and stated that the OP-1 will get back shortly.  On 11.6.2020 the OP-1 stated that no refund is possible from the OP-1 side.  On 19.6.2020 the OP -1 sent an email attaching the page no.6 of the terms of application and highlighting point no. 20(a).  It be mentioned herein that complainant received a copy of the agreement for sale pertaining to the properties mentioned in the schedule below on 29.5.2020 vide e/mail. That it is stated herein that complainant had complete faith and trust upon the opposite party no. 1 and as such on the words of the opposite party no. 1 initiated process to purchase the property described in the schedule below. The opposite party no. 1 under estimated the financial constraints of the complainant and the pandemic situation prevailing worldwide which also affected the complainant. The complainant on the basis of trust and faith made payment of a sum of Rs. 2,10,579/- (rupees Two Lakhs, Ten Thousand, Five Hundred and Seventy Nine) only and further paid Rs. 39,131/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Thousand, One Hundred and Thirty One) only as stamp duty and registration charges. The opposite party no. 1 knowing fully well of the economic and social situation prevailing in the world at large of which the complainant is a sufferer pressurized the complainant for making further payments for which the complainant had to disclose financial constraints and cancel the purchase. The complainant duly cancelled and revoked/rescinded the contract between the opposite party no. 1 and the complainant. Till date the opposite party no. 1 have not shown the complainant the property described in the schedule below physically. On cancellation the opposite party no. 1 have failed to refund the said amount of Rs.2,10,579/- (Two Lakhs, Ten Thousand, Five Hundred and Seventy Nine ) only till realization. Thus, the complainant, has a charge on the property described in the schedule below till realization of Rs. 2,10,579/-(Rupees Two Lakhs, ten Thousand, Five Hundred and Seventy Nine) only with interest. The opposite party no. 1 is a service provider to the complainant. That the complainant through her Advocate Shri Debojyoti Mitra had sent a demand notice dated 27/07/2020 through Speed Post with A/D to all the opposite parties. The said notice was properly addressed and duly stamped. That the opposite party no. 1 issued a reply dated 08/09/2020 to Mr. Debpjyoti Mitra, Ld. Advocate of the complainant and stated that they have received the above mentioned demand notice dated 27/07/2020 and they would send a reply soon. That again the opposite party no. 1 issued a reply on 07/10/2020 addressed to Mr. Debojyoti Mitra Ld. Advocate of the complainant wherein certain facts as stated by the complainant through her above mentioned notice dated 27/07/2020 was admitted and certain facts denied and finally called upon the complainant to withdraw the said demand notice. That the complainant submits that the cancellation clause relied upon by the opposite party no. 1 with regard to “no refund” is bad in law and illegal. The opposite parties are legally bound to refund the amount demanded by the complainant. That the complainant submits that the opposite party no. 1 for himself and admittedly as attorney of opposite party no. 2 made illegal demand of money during pandemic situation and before the due occurred. The complainant protested and explained her difficulty. The factum of demand prior to stipulated time caused hazard and difficulty and agony to the complainant. The demand is illegal. Further, pushing through execution of agreement for sale without supplying a copy of the same for necessary legal checks transpires or manifests that the opposite party no. 1 was humbly pushing through the deal/transaction. After invoking cancelation, till date the opposite party no. 1 have not issued any specific cancellation letter for which the complainant has been made to suffer. That in the above mentioned reply dated 27/07/2020 the opposite party no. 1 has denied the relationship of consumer as against the opposite party taking the plea that upon termination of contract there is no longer privity of contract between the parties. The complainant humbly submits the relationship between the opposite parties and the complainant still date subsists and as of date, the complainant is still a consumer under the opposite parties.

Complainant filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 210579/- to pay interest @ 8% p.a. till final realization and to hand over a proper cancellation certificate and to pay a compensation of Rs.1000000/- and to pay a sum of Rs.50000/- for litigation cost.

Defense Case:-  The opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against them and stated that the Housing Project in which the subject matter of the present application pertains is registered under the provisions of the WBHIRA, 2017 and governed by the provisions of WBHIRA, 2017 and in terms of the said WBHIRA, 2017, if an Allottee which in this case is the complainant, wishes to cancel the allotment without any fault of the promoter, the promoter is entitled to forfeit the entire booking amount paid by the allottee and even otherwise the terms and conditions of the booking application form which the complainant herself relies upon also provides for such forfeiture and this condition is necessitated in order to project the real estate developers against consumers who try to steal a bargain by paying small/ paltry sums of money and keep a unit blocked with the intention to resell it in the open market and this becomes even more predominant in projects like the one launched by the op no. 1 wherein unit/ flat selection is customer choice based and includes direction, location, layout, vastu and several other such factors and thereafter like any other business, the housing construction business also requires steady cash flow and allowing a consumer to book a flat by paying Rs. 50,000/- which is less than 3% of the deal value and on the basis thereof blocking a unit, obtaining a allotment letter and thereafter holding on to it hampers business of the Developer. Accordingly forfeiture clauses have been incorporated and has due backing of the law and in order to prevent such harassment of the real estate developers against such consumers and bring a balance in the business where the consumers have been given several rights once the consumer honestly proceeds with its booking and converts the same into an agreement for sale, the same consumers have been cautioned against such trading in units and the law has been set down to hold such consumers with penalty in case of cancellation where the developer is not at fault.

The present case is covered by such laws. The forfeiture amount which the op no. 1 has forfeited is within the limits set down by the relevant laws and accordingly such forfeiture cannot be termed as deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant being highly educated teacher in a reputed school has signed each and every documents after thorough understanding of the content thereof and the complainant being interested in the upcoming project of opposite parties namely, “Sunshine One”, after being satisfied with all the approvals, sanctions etc. for the project and also after being fully satisfied with the terms and conditions attached for any sale of flat at the said project including the documents available in the public domain, obtain and application from for seeking allotment of a flat at the said project and after having read and understood the terms of the application attached with the said application, complainant filled up the said application and duly signed on each page of  thee said application from and submitted the same with opposite parties along with payment of sum of Rs. 50,000/- as applicable money and the opposite parties upon receipt of the said application and application money and in consideration of the complainant having agreed to the terms of the application attached with the said application from had issued an allotment letter being ref. no. SSI/ 2019-2020?AL00474 dt. 28.2.2020 which was duly received and accepted by the complainant and having accepted the same the complainant time to time made payment of a sum of Rs. 47,724/- on 10.3.2020 and thereafter a sum of Rs. 95,770/- on 24.3.2020 being the total sum of Rs. 1,43,497/- after issuance of the provisional allotment and the complainant being fully satisfied with the terms and conditions in the said standard agreement for sale for the said project and having accepted the same made payment of a sum of Rs. 39,131/- to the Government of West Bengal on account of payment of stamp duty and Registration fees of registration of the said agreement for sale to be executed between the opposite parties and the complainant and upon payment of the said stamp duty and registration fees the complainant had forwarded a copy of the challan evidencing such payment the complainant further paid a sum of Rs. 15,150/- on account of legal fees pertaining to the documentation and registration of the said agreement for sale.

Thereafter, although the date for registration of the agreement for sale had been fixed on 28.3.2020 owing to the lock down having been declared by reason of pandemic, registration could not be take  place and thereafter the opposite parties had tried to extend all possible facilities to the complainant and accommodate the complainant during the pandemic times, and also to enable complainant to proceed with the agreement for sale which included assisting in obtaining bank loan, reschedule of payments and various other assistance for spreading out financial burden and the same will be evidenced from the numerous telephone calls and e-mails exchanged with the petitioner and the complainant on 25. 5.2020  was willing to proceed with the agreement for sale and accordingly at the request of complainant , opposite parries arranged for sending the original agreement for sale at the residence of the complainant for execution thereof so that process of registration could be completed and the complainant after inspecting such agreement for sale and being satisfied with the agreement for sale ( which was on the standard form of agreement as available in the Public Domain and within the knowledge of the complainant prior to even singing the booking application form), duly signed the same and made over the original to the opposite parties representative with the intention to have the same presented for registration and having paid the stamp duty and registration fees and thereafter having signed the agreement for sale the only pending procedural part was to attend the office of the concerned registrar to complete the registration.

Thereafter instead of proceeding with the registration of the agreement for sale of the said flat the complainant all of a sudden by a e-mail  dated June 2, 2020 cancelled the allotment and refused to proceed further with the same.  Upon having received the said e-mail, officers of the OPs got in touch with the complainant and tried to explain to complainant all the contractual obligations and the effect of cancellation by complainant.  Representative of the OPs also tried to assist complainant by extending the available schemes for enabling complainant for financial flexibility in continuing with the contract.  Despite all efforts being made by the Ops, the complainant refused to proceed with the contract and in such circumstances, OPs had no choice but to implement the terms and conditions governing the contract whereunder complainant had unequivocally agreed to forfeiture of the entire booking amount in case of cancellation of the booking after selection of the flat but before registration of the agreement for sale.  The complainant has chosen to cancel the booking without any fault of the OPs and thus the OPs are lawfully entitled to forfeit the entire booking amount paid by the complainant to the OP-1.  Even otherwise as per the terms of application which was duly sign by the complainant for obtaining allotment of selected flat, the OP-1 is entitled to forfeit the entire booking amount which has been done and thus there is no cause of action in favour of the complainant.

The complainant has come before this Ld. Tribunal with unclean hands and has suppressed material facts and documents which are essential for adjudication of the present application.

The complainant has suppressed the terms of application (Hereinafter referred to as the “said TOA”)  mentioned in the application which has been signed by the complainant at the time of booking of the flat measuring 630 sq. ft of super built up area on the 5^th floor of Tower 2B being residential apartment no.2B-5-D alongwith one open parking space for two wheeler parking in “Sunshine One”, Hindmotor, under police station Uttarpara, Hooghly 712258.  As per of the said TOA annexed with the application and duly signed by the complainant, the complainant is not entitled to get any refund from the OPs.  It is specifically recorded and agreed in the cause 20(a of TOA that in the event any cancellation and termination and withdrawal application made by any applicant for any reasons whatsoever then the entire booking amount paid as on cancellation date would be forfeited.  The TOA was a part of the application Form and accordance with the terms and conditions of  TOA and the complainant having accepted the same, Allotment was made to the complainant.  In view of suppression of facts and documents as narrated above, the petition is liable to be dismissed in limine on this ground alone by imposing punitive costs on  the complainant.

Issues/points for consideration

On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the District Commission for the interest of proper and complete adjudication of this case is going to adopt the following points for consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties or not?
2. Whether this Forum/ Commission has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
3. Is there any cause of action for filing this case by the complainant?
4. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
5. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief which has been prayed by the complainant in this case or not?

Evidence on record

The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition and denial of the written version of the opposite parties.

            The answering opposite parties filed evidence on affidavit which transpires the averments of the written version and so it is needless to discuss.

Argument highlighted by the ld. Lawyers of the parties

Complainant and opposite parties filed written notes of argument. As per BNA the evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of both sides are to be taken into consideration for passing final order.

            Argument as advanced by the agents of the complainant and the opposite parties heard in full. In course of argument ld. Lawyers of both sides have given emphasis on evidence and document produced by parties.

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

The first three issues/ points of consideration which have been framed on the ground of maintainability and/ or jurisdiction, cause of action and whether complainant is a consumer in the eye of law, are very vital issues and so these three points of consideration  are  clubbed together and taken up for discussion jointly at first.

   Regarding these three points of consideration it is very important to note that the opposite parties even after appearance in this case and after filing written version, have not filed any petition on the ground of nonmaitainability of this case due to the reason best known to them. Under this position this District Commission has passed the order of further hearing of this case. On this background it is also mention worthy that the opposite parties also have not filed any separate petition challenging the maintainability point, jurisdiction point and cause of action issue. The opposite parties in their written version have only pleaded the above noted points. This District Commission after going through the materials of the case record finds that the complainant is a resident of Mankundu, Hooghly which is lying within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Commission. Moreover, this complaint case has been filed with a claim of below 50 lakhs and this matter is clearly indicating that this District Commission has also pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case. Thus, the point of jurisdiction which has been alleged by the opposite parties cannot be accepted. Moreover, u/s 34 of the Consumer Protection Act, this District Commission has jurisdiction to try this case. The opposite parties also have raised the plea of limitation and in the written version it has been pointed out that this case is barred by limitation. But in this connection it is important to note that the provision of 69 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is very important and according to the provision of Section 69 complaint case can be entertained by the District Commission or State Commission or National Commission even after expiry of 2 years if the complainant satisfies the ld. Commission that he or she has sufficient ground for not filing the case within two years. Moreover in this instant case the cause of action has been continued and thus the above noted plea of the opposite parties which has been pointed out in the written version is also not acceptable. On close examination of the pleadings of the parties it also transpires that there is cause of action for filing this case by the complainant side against the opposite parties. Moreover after going through the provisions of Section 2 (1) (e) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 it appears that this case is maintainable and according to the provision of Section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Complainant is a consumer in the eye of law          All these factors are clearly depicting that this case is maintainable and complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties and this District Commission has territorial/ pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try this case and there is also cause of action for filing this case by the complainant against the opposite parties. Thus, the above noted three points of consideration are decided in favour of the complainant.

            The point no. 4 is related with the question as to whether there is any deficiency in the service on the part of the opposite parties or not? The point no. 5 is connected with the question as to whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief in this case or not? These two pints of consideration are interlinked and/ or interconnected with each other and for that reason these two points of consideration are clubbed together and taken up for discussion jointly.

            For the purpose of deciding the fate of these two points of consideration and for the interest of getting answers of the above noted questions, there is necessity of scanning the evidence on affidavit filed by the parties and there is also necessity making scrutiny of the documents filed by the parties of this case.

            On comparative studies of the evidence on affidavit filed by the complainant with the evidence on affidavit filed by the opposite parties and on close compare of the documents filed by both parties it appears that the complainant had taken application form for applying to get a flat in the project of the OPs and also submitted the said form alongwith required fees of Rs.50,000/- to the OPs.  It is admitted fact that the Ops after receiving the application form and after getting the application fees has allotted a flat in the project of the Ops.  It is also revealed from the case record that the complainant has made payment of Rs.2,10,579/- to the OPs and OPs also have received the said amount.  It is also reflected from the evidence on record and documents submitted by both sides that the agreement for sale was executed in between complainant and OPs but due to COVID situation the said agreement for sale was not registered before the registering authority.  It is also revealed from the evidence on record that the complainant thereafter cancelled her prayer for allotting the said flat in the project of the OPs and prayed time and again to the Ops for refunding the amount of Rs.2,10,579/- but the OPs have not refunded the said amount on the pretext that the said amount has been forfeited as per terms and conditions of the application form and it is against the provisions of WBHIRA 2017.  Now the question is whether complainant is entitled to get back the amount of Rs.210579/- from the OPs or not.  In this connection the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court which is observed in the case of Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sushma Ashok Shiroor and reported in AIR2022SC1824 is very important where Hon’ble Court has been observed that failure to deliver possession within stipulated period of time indicates the deficiency of service and in that event the buyer must get refund of the advance money alongwith interest @ Rs.9% per annum.  Thus it is crystal clear that the above noted point of contention of the OPs cannot be accepted.

A cumulative consideration of the above noted discussion goes to show that the complainant has proved her case in respect of all the points of consideration adopted in this case and so he is entitled to get relief which has been prayed by her in this case.

In the result it is accordingly

ordered

that this complaint case being no. 96 of 2020 be and the same is allowed on contest but in part.

            It is held that the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs.2,10,579/- alongwith interest @ Rs.9% per annum from the OPs and Opposite Parties are directed to pay the said amount within 45 days from the date of delivery of this judgment.  Otherwise the complainant is given liberty to execute this award as per law.

No order is passed as to compensation and litigation cost.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.

            The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.