State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. Kabir Sen, S/O Late Shri … vs M/S Manohar Infrastructure & … on 4 July, 2019 Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Complaint case No. : 449 of 2018 Date of Institution : 30.11.2018 Date of Decision : 04.07.2019   Mr.Kabir Sen, S/o Late Shri S.S. Sen, B-36, Appoorva Plot No.14, Sec 5, Dwarka N.Delhi, currently residing at C-602, Himachal Apartment, Plot No.21, Sector 5, Dwarka, New Delhi. ……Complainant V e r s u s M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Construction Pvt. Ltd., SCO 139-141. Sector-17, Chandigarh. Sh.Tarninder Singh, Director of M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Construction Pvt. Ltd., SCO 139-141. Sector-17, Chandigarh. Sh.Narinderbir Singh, Director of M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Construction Pvt. Ltd., SCO 139-141. Sector-17, Chandigarh.   …. Opposite Parties Argued by:- Sh.Abhinav Kansal, Advocate for the complainant.                     Sh.I.P. Singh, Advocate for the opposite parties. ======================================================= Complaint case No. : 450 of 2018 Date of Institution : 30.11.2018 Date of Decision : 04.07.2019   Mr. Suneel Bakshi, S/o Sh. Shami Kumar, R/o 3251/3, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh.    Sh. Shami Kumar, S/o Chiranji Lai, R/o 3251/3, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh.    Smt. Sonia Dutta, D/o Sh. Shammi Kumar, R/o 3251/3, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh.   ……Complainants V e r s u s M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Construction Pvt. Ltd., SCO 139-141. Sector-17, Chandigarh. Sh. Tarninder Singh, Director of M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Construction Pvt. Ltd., SCO 139-141. Sector-17, Chandigarh. Sh. Narinderbir Singh, Director of M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Construction Pvt. Ltd., SCO 139-141. Sector-17, Chandigarh.  …Opposite Parties Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. (HDFC), Branch Office at SCO 153-155, Sector 8-C Madhya Marg Chandigarh.   …. Proforma Party Argued by:- Sh.Abhinav Kansal, Advocate for the complainants.                     Sh.I.P. Singh, Advocate for the opposite parties no.1 to 3.                     Ms.Neetu Singh, Advocate proxy for Ms.Rupali Shekhar Verma, Advocate for opposite party no.4.   ===================================================== Complaint case No. : 461 of 2018 Date of Institution : 11.12.2018 Date of Decision : 04.07.2019   Tajendra Singh son of Sh. Rajinder Singh, resident of House No. 61, Jawaddi Kalan, Basant Vihar, Basant Avenue, Ludhiana Ravpreet Kaur wife of Harminder Singh resident of House No. 730, Phase-9, Mohali. Surjit Kaur wife of Sh. Ujjal Singh resident of House No. 22231, Street No. 12, Dhobiana Road, Shant Nagar, Bathinda.     ……Complainants V e r s u s M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Private Limited having its registered office at SCO No. 139-141, Sector-17C, First Floor, Chandigarh through its Managing Director/Authorised Signatory. Tarninder Singh, Managing Director/Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Private Limited having its registered office at SCO No. 139-141, Sector-17C, First Floor, Chandigarh. Narinder Bir Singh, Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Private Limited having its registered office at SCO No. 139-141, Sector- 17C, First Floor, Chandigarh   …. Opposite Parties   Argued by:- Sh.Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate for the complainants.                     Sh.I.P. Singh, Advocate for the opposite parties. ===================================================== Complaint case No. :  472 of 2018 Date of Institution : 18.12.2018 Date of Decision : 04.07.2019   Neetu Sharma wife of Kapil Sharma Kapil Sharma son of Ram Kishan Sharma, Permanent residents of House No. 694, Sector-69, Mohali, presently residing at Flat No. 1211, Golden Sand Tower, A1 Nahda, Sharjah, UAE   ……Complainants V e r s u s M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Private Limited having its registered office at SCO No. 139-141, Sector-17C, First Floor, Chandigarh through its Managing Director/Authorised Signatory. Tarninder Singh, Managing Director/Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Private Limited having its registered office at SCO No. 139-141, Sector-17C, First Floor, Chandigarh. Narinderbir Singh, Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Private Limited having its registered office at SCO No. 139-141, Sector-17C, First Floor, Chandigarh.   …. Opposite Parties Argued by:- Sh.Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate for the complainants.                     Sh.I.P. Singh, Advocate for the opposite parties. ===================================================== Complaint case No. : 09 of 2019 Date of Institution : 15.01.2019 Date of Decision : 04.07.2019   Jaspreet Sukhija S/o Sh. J.S. Sukhija R/o H. No. 1874, Sector- 34 D, Chandigarh.   …… Complainant V e r s u s M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Ltd., having its office at SCO 139-141, Sector-17 C, Chandigarh through its Directors, Sh. Tarninder Singh and Sh. Narinderbir Singh. Tarninder Singh, Director of M/s. Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Ltd, R/o House No. 246, Sector – 9-C, Chandigarh 160009. Narinderbir Singh, Director of M/s. Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Ltd, R/o House No. 246, Sector – 9-C, Chandigarh 160009.   …. Opposite Parties Argued by:- Sh. Savinder Singh Gill, Advocate for the complainant.                     Sh.I.P. Singh, Advocate for the opposite parties.   =====================================================   Complaint case No. : 10 of 2019 Date of Institution : 15.01.2019 Date of Decision : 04.07.2019   Manudeep Miglani W/o Sh. Tejinderpal Singh Miglani, R/o Al/166, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029.     ……Complainant V e r s u s M/s. Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Ltd., SCO 139-141, Sector- 17 C, Chandigarh through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory. Sh. Taraninder Singh, Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Ltd., R/o House No. 246 Sector – 9 C, Chandigarh-160009. Sh. Narinderbir Singh, Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Ltd., R/o House No. 246 Sector – 9 C, Chandigarh-160009. …. Opposite Parties   Argued by:- Sh.Savinder Singh Gill, Advocate for the complainant.                     Sh.I.P. Singh, Advocate for the opposite parties. =====================================================   Complaints under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.   BEFORE:          JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.                         MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.                         MR.RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.   PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT                 By this order, we propose to dispose of aforesaid six consumer complaints. Arguments were heard in common, in the above cases, as the issues involved therein, except minor variations, here and there, of law and facts are the same.  At the time of arguments, on 27.05.2019, it was agreed by Counsel for the contesting parties, that facts involved in the above complaints, by and large, are the same, and therefore, these complaints can be disposed of, by passing a consolidated order. As such, to dictate order, facts are being taken from consumer complaint bearing no. 449 of 2018 titled as Mr.Kabir Sen Vs. M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Construction Pvt. Limited and ors. The complainant has filed this complaint, seeking refund of amount of Rs.27,00,000/- (alongwith interest, compensation etc.), paid by him, to the opposite parties, towards price of the residential plot, measuring 300 square yards @18,000/- per square yard, purchased by him, on 06.11.2011, in a Mega Housing Project, known as ‘Palm Garden’, Mullanpur, Punjab. Total price of the said plot was fixed at Rs.54,00,000/- (300 sq. yds. x Rs.18,000/-). It is case of the complainant that despite the fact that substantial amount equal to about 50% of the total sale consideration, referred to above, had been paid to the opposite parties, by August 2013, yet, they failed to allot plot; send buyer’s agreement for his signatures and also, till date possession of the plot has not been offered and delivered to him. Number of visits made to the project site and also office of the opposite parties, with a request to show them necessary approvals/sanctions in respect of the project in question and also to complete the development and hand over possession of plot, did not yield any result. There was a complete violation of Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (in short the PAPRA) on the part of the opposite parties. Under those circumstances, the complainant served legal notice dated 14.09.2018, Annexure C-6, upon the opposite parties, seeking refund of amount paid alongwith interest and compensation but to of no avail. Hence this complaint.           In the reply filed by the opposite parties, they took numerous objections like, expression of interest shown by the complainant was for speculative purpose, as such, he being investor, would not fall within the definition of consumer, as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act, 1986). It was pleaded that complicated questions of facts and law are involved in this complaint, as such, the same cannot be entertained by this Commission, proceedings before which are summary in nature. Only Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint. Territorial jurisdiction of this Commission was also challenged. It was stated that the project of the opposite parties has been registered under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (in short, the RERA). Jurisdiction of this Commission was further challenged, by stating that RERA being a special statute took precedence over the 1986 Act. It was also so said by Counsel for the opposite parties, at the time of arguments.         On merits, it was admitted that the plot, in question, was sold to the complainant, in a project of the opposite parties known as “Palm Garden” aforesaid. It was stated that the complainant has made payment of Rs.27 lacs, and, thereafter failed to make further payment towards price of the said plot. To say that there was lot of development in the project, some photographs were placed on record by the opposite parties. It was stated that the project was approved on 22.03.2013. Formal agreement was signed with the Government on 14.06.2013. Thereafter, some more land was added to the project, for which completion period was given upto 13.06.2018, vide supplementary agreement dated 16.06.2016. As such, possession of the plot, in question, was to be delivered to the complainant, by 13.06.2018. Furthermore, on request made by the opposite parties, the Competent Authority has extended completion period of the project, upto 31.07.2019. It was stated that exemption from the applicability of provisions of the PAPRA already stood granted by the Government concerned, in favour of the opposite parties on 25.01.2017. In view of above, act of the opposite parties in getting money deposited against expression of interest, from the purchasers stood rectified. The exemption granted will relate back to the date, when application was moved for sanction, to launch the project, in the year 2011 i.e. it is retrospective in nature. It was averred that once the State Government has not held that the opposite parties had violated the provisions of PAPRA, as such, this Commission cannot go into the said question. It was stated that as per Section 35 of the PAPRA, jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred to entertain and decide any question relating to matters arising under it (PAPRA). It was averred that, the opposite parties are in possession of all the requisite permissions/clearances, in respect of the said project. At the time of arguments also, it was contended with vehemence, by Counsel for the opposite parties that irregularities, if any, in accepting the ‘expression of interest’ to purchase the land in the absence of necessary permissions/sanctions; non allotment of plot; non-execution of Buyer’s Agreement in a time bound manner, as per Section 6 of the PAPRA etc. have no adverse effect on the project of the opposite parties. It was averred that the complainant was requested number of times, to come forward to pay the remaining amount towards price of the plot; select plot; sign buyer’s agreement and take possession thereof, but he failed to do so. Notices were also sent to the complainant, in the matter, but to of no avail. He is defaulter in making payment of the remaining amount. It was further stated that claim of the complainant seeking interest @18% p.a. is totally unjustified. Even for fixed deposits, in the banks, rate of interest is very less. Recently in a case decided against the builder namely DLF Valley Panchkula, the Supreme Court has granted interest @9% p.a. while ordering refund of the deposited amount. Huge amount has been invested by the opposite parties for getting necessary clearances and in developing the site in dispute. The opposite parties are trying to complete the project, as early as possible, as the development work is going on, in full swing. Work with regard to provision of basic amenities such as water, electricity etc. are near completion. However, in the same breath, it was pleaded that, as per Supplementary Agreement dated 16.06.2016, the Govt. concerned has given completion period of the project upto 13.06.2018. It was averred that time was not the essence of contract. In the same breath, it was further pleaded that the complaint is barred by limitation. The project was delayed, also on account of red-tapism in the offices of the Govt. Department concerned and also business/political rivalry. The Competent Authorities delayed in granting approvals/sanctions, as far as the present project is concerned. It was stated that delay in delivery of possession of plots occurred also on account of shortage of building material and ban on mining by the Govt., which could be termed as force majeure circumstances. Furthermore, there was no sale of goods to the complainant. It was averred that still the complainant is free to come forward, for execution of the Agreement. It was pleaded that, in case, still the complainant wants refund of the amount deposited, forfeiture Clause will be applicable in the present case, whereby substantial amount equal to the earnest money will be forfeited out of the amount deposited by him. It was pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable against opposite parties no.2 and 3, as such, it is bad for misjoinder of parties. Saying that neither there is any deficiency in rendering service nor adoption of unfair trade practice, on the part of the opposite parties, it was prayed that this complaint having no substance deserves dismissal with cost.         The contesting parties led evidence, in support of their cases.         We have heard the contesting parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the cases, very carefully.         The first question that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant is an investor, as such, he would not fall within definition of consumer, as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act, 1986.                 It may be stated here that the complainant, in his complaint, supported by the affidavit, has clearly stated that the plot, in question, was purchased by him for his personal use. At the same time, there is nothing on record to prove that the complainant, is a property dealer, and deals in the sale and purchase of property, on regular basis, and as such, the plot, in question, was purchased by him, by way of investment, with a view to resell the same, as and when, there was escalation in the prices thereof.  Thus, in the absence of any cogent evidence, in support of the objection raised by the opposite parties, mere bald assertion to that effect, cannot be taken into consideration. Since the opposite parties have levelled allegations against the complainant, the onus lay upon them, to place on record, documentary evidence in that regard, which they failed to do so. Otherwise also, in a case titled as  Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jai Krishna Estate Developer Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (1) CPJ 31, decided by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it was held that the buyer(s) of the residential unit(s), would be termed as consumer(s), unless it is proved that he or she had booked the same for commercial purpose. Similar view was reiterated by the National Commission, in  DLF Universal Limited Vs Nirmala Devi Gupta,  2016 (2) CPJ 316, Aashish Oberai Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited, Consumer Case No. 70 of 2015, decided on 14 Sep 2016, and recently in Shashi Kala Gupta Vs. M/s. Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., First Appeal No. 1281 of 2017, decided on 15 Mar 2019. Relevant part of the said order (FA 1281 of 2017) reads thus:- “……..This Commission in  Kavit Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. & Jai Krishna Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd.  (I) (2016) CPJ 31 (NC)  held that when there is a specific pleading stating that the additional plots/flats purchased are for the personal use of the family members, the onus is on the Opposite Parties to establish that the purchaser is dealing in real estate i.e. purchase and sale of plots/flats and are indulging in commercial activity.  In the instant case there is no documentary evidence filed by the Developer to establish that the Complainant was indulging in any commercial activity in real estate, involved in the purchase and sale of plots…….. ”                   The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the present case. The complainant, thus, falls within the definition of a ‘consumer’, as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Such an objection, taken by the opposite parties, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.          Now coming to the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction, it may be stated here that in the instant case, perusal of almost all the documents placed on record, pertaining to transaction carried out between the parties, reveal that the same have been issued and received from/by Chandigarh Office of the opposite parties i.e. Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.139-141, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. Even the documents placed on record, which were issued by Controlling Authority of the opposite parties, with regard to approvals qua the project, in question, are also addressed to their Chandigarh Office, meaning thereby that the opposite parties were carrying out their business at the said office for gains. Not only as above, as per information provided by the opposite parties alongwith written reply, address of the Company has been mentioned as SCO No.139-141, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh-160017. This Commission, therefore, has got territorial Jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint.  Objection taken by the opposite parties, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.          It is evident from the record that by 04.08.2013, the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.27,00,000/-, to the opposite parties, towards price of the residential plot, measuring 300 square yards, in the said project, total sale consideration of which was fixed at Rs.54,00,000/-. The amount paid was equal to 50% of the total sale consideration, yet, the opposite parties failed to allot plot and send buyer’s agreement for his signatures. It is further evident from the record that instead of issuing allotment letter and sending buyer’s agreement for signatures of the complainant, the opposite parties, vide letter dated 28.04.2014 Annexure O-1 made further demand of Rs.8,10,000/-, which was not paid by the complainant, as they failed to  allot plot no. and send Buyer’s Agreement for his signatures, in respect of sale of the said plot and also by that time, he came to know that the project was launched and sold, without necessary approvals/sanctions.                 However, to defeat the claim raised by the complainant, it has vehemently been contended by Counsel for the opposite parties that fault lays on the part of the complainant, as he was requested a number of times, by way of sending notices, to come forward, for allotment of plot and sign the buyer’s agreement. It was so said by placing reliance on letter dated 28.04.2014 Annexure O-1 referred to above and letter dated 26.06.2014 Annexure O-2. We have gone through the contents of both the letters and found that not even a single word has been mentioned therein regarding allotment of plot and execution of buyer’s agreement. Infact, the said letters were sent, only with a view to usurp more money from the complainant, without providing him anything. It has been noticed in number of cases already decided by this Commission in respect of the same project, that the opposite parties have duped innocent buyers, in the same way, as has been done in the present case, by usurping money from them, on the basis of misleading information regarding development at the project site.                 Once the opposite parties had already received substantial amount from the complainant, i.e. equal to 50% of the sale consideration, it was required of them to allot plot; send buyer’s agreement for signatures, automatically,  and then proceed further for raising demands of the remaining amount;  complete the development; obtain completion certificate from the competent authorities; and then offer and deliver possession of the plot, in question. Irrespective of the fact that the opposite parties were exempted from the provisions of PAPRA or not, it is the legal right of the allottees/buyers, to know about terms and conditions of the agreement, against the property which he/she is going to purchase. Whereas, in the instant case, the terms and conditions of the agreement to be entered into with the complainant, were never even shown to him, what to speak of providing copy thereof, at the time of booking of the plot, in question.  Now at this stage, the complainant cannot be asked to sign the agreement, as the terms and conditions contained therein were prepared and framed by the opposite parties, unilaterally, without consulting him, which itself is an unfair trade practice. As such, it is held that, in the instant case, the complainant was trapped by the opposite parties, by usurping 50% amount of the total sale consideration, but was not provided the agreement containing detailed terms and conditions in respect of sale of the plot, in question, which act amounted to deficiency in providing service and also unfair trade practice. Under similar circumstances, similar view had been taken by the National Commission in M/s. Pyramid Arcades Pvt. Ltd Vs. Raju Kishanchand Lakhani, First Appeal No. 99 of 2016, decided on 10 May 2016.  Relevant part of the said order reads thus:- “Instead of touching the heart of the problem, the learned counsel for the Appellant has just skirted it.  This is an admitted fact that even after accepting 60% of the total value of the flat, the Appellant / OP did not execute the agreement to Sell.  This is the principal deficiency on the part of the Appellant / OP.  In a latest case, titled Samarth Associates Eng.& Builders & Ors. Vs. Ramesh Ramachandra Lokhande  RP No.4729 of 2012, dated 10.09.2013, we observed as under :  “6. All these arguments are bereft of force. It is clear that the petitioners/Builders did not execute the Agreement, till the eleventh hour and piled on the agony of the allottee, by cancelling his allotment, for no valid reasons. The cause of action arose on 19.11.2009. Till date, no agreement has been executed. “7. The following  deficiencies  are apparent on the face of the record.  First of  all, it  is not   understood  why  the agreement  was not  executed at or  about  the execution  of  receipt  of Rs.25,000/-.  In Belaire Owners’  Association Vs. DLF Ltd. & Ors., Case No.19/2010, vide supplementary order  dated 03.01.2013,  the  Competition  Commission of India, held  :- “31.The terms of the agreement to be entered into  with  the allottee were never  shown to the  allottee at the time of booking of the apartment.  These terms and conditions of the agreement were prepared and framed by the company unilaterally without consulting the buyer. Once the company had already received considerable amount from the applicants/buyers, this agreement was forced upon  the allottees and the allottee had no option but to sign the agreement, as otherwise the agreement provided for heavy penalties and deduction from the money already deposited by the allottees with the company, which itself was an abuse of dominance. The appropriate procedure would have been that a copy of the agreement which DLF proposed to enter with the allottee should have been made available to the applicants at the time of inviting applications”. 8.      Aggrieved against the order of this Commission, dated 10.09.2013, Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.36667-68 of 2013, with the same cause title (Samarth Associates Engineers & Builders & Ors. Vs. Ramesh Ramachandra Lokhande) was filed before the Hon’ble Apex Court.  The Hon’ble Apex Court, vide its order dated 16.12.2013, dismissed the same”.         In the instant case, despite the fact that the plot, in question was booked as far as back in November 2011, still the opposite parties, in their written statement, are saying that development of the project is at advance stage and that basic amenities such as roads, electricity etc. are near completion. No exact period/date of possession has still been given, by which possession of the plot could be delivered. Burden to prove that the project has been completed and the area/site, in question, is fully developed or is about to complete, is on the builder/opposite parties. It was so said by the National Commission, in Emaar MGF Land Limited and another Vs. Krishan Chander Chandna, First Appeal No.873 of 2013 decided on 29.09.2014. In case, all the development/construction activities, are being undertaken and near completion, then it was for the opposite parties, which could be said to be in possession of the best evidence, to produce cogent and convincing documentary evidence, in the shape of the reports and affidavits of the Engineers/Architects, as they could be said to be the best persons, to testify, as to whether, all these development/ construction activities are being undertaken and about to complete in near future, but they failed to do so.  Mere placing on record some photographs, perusal of which too, reveal that still lot of development works need to be completed, are of no help to the opposite parties, especially in the face of their candid admission in para no.14 of written reply that basic amenities such as roads, electricity, sewerage, landscaping and other development works are near completion. In the absence of amenities mentioned in para no.14 of reply of the opposite parties, and also completion certificate, possession of the plot is not possible to be delivered.  It appears that the opposite parties are not serious in developing the project. Had they been serious in doing so, they would have definitely allotted plot in favour of the complainant within a short period of time and sent buyer’s agreement for signatures, within a reasonable period of two to three months, on receipt of amount, referred to above, which was more than 50% of the sale consideration, as far as back in 2013, but they failed to do so. Under these circumstances, it can very well be said that the opposite parties were not interested in developing the project and to deliver possession of the plot, in question, but were interested in usurping money from the customers, which act also amounts to deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice. This is not the first case, but this Commission has decided number of cases against the opposite parties with similar facts, in respect of the same project “Palm Garden”, Mullanpur, Punjab, wherein, it has been proved that they have lost interest in developing the project, in a time bound manner.                 In view of above, it is also held that the plea taken by Counsel for the opposite parties to the effect that in such case, forfeiture clause to the extent of 20% of the sale consideration will be applicable, being devoid of merit, must fail and the same stands rejected. Had the opposite parties proved the fact that they were ready with delivery of possession of the plot within a reasonable period of two or three years, from the date of booking thereof and had they been in possession of completion/partial completion certificate and had they sent buyer’s agreement during the period aforesaid and had in those circumstances, the complainant(s) in all the cases, referred to above, failed to make the payments due and sought refund of the amount paid, on account of personal reasons, only in those circumstances, it would have been held that they are entitled to refund of the amount paid, after deductions, as applicable under law. However, it is not so the case of the opposite parties. As such, plea taken in this regard, being devoid of merit, is rejected.         As far as the objection taken by Counsel for the opposite parties, with regard to impleading of opposite parties no.2 and 3, in their personal capacity, is concerned, we do not agree with it. It is not the case of the opposite parties that the above-named persons are not their Directors. As such, these two persons are holding such important positions in the Company, where they are directly involved with the decision-making process in the Company. A similar controversy arose for determination before the Hon’ble National Commission, in a case titled as M/s. India Bulls Real Estate & Wholesale Services Ltd. & Ors, Vs. Vemparala Srikant & Anr., First Appeal No. 797 of 2017, decided on 16 Aug 2017, wherein, it was held as under:- “From the material on record, it is evident that the OP-2 is the Chairman of the Company whereas the OP-3 is the Chief Executive Officer-cum-M.D. of the said company.  Evidently, these two persons are holding such important positions in the Company, where they are directly involved with the decision-making process in the company.  By virtue of their office, they can directly influence any decision regarding relief to be granted to the complainant, as asked for in the consumer complaint.  It is held, therefore, that the State Commission has rightly dismissed the interim application, rejecting the plea of the appellants to delete the name of OP-2 & OP-3 from the array of parties.  The impugned order passed by the State Commission is, therefore, upheld and the appeal is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.”                 In view of above, objection raised by Counsel for the opposite parties, in this regard, stands rejected.         It was also argued by Counsel for the opposite parties that in the cases wherein, the complainant(s) have failed to make payment, as per demands raised by the Company, as such, in case, this Commission comes to the conclusion that they are entitled to refund of the amount paid alongwith interest, then the same (interest), be granted after a lapse of three years, from the date of booking of the plot. We do not agree with the argument raised. It may be stated here that not only in this compliant, but in almost all the complaints, filed against the opposite parties, in respect of the project, in question, it has been noted as a matter of fact that they are interested only in making demands towards price of the plot(s), even in the absence of allotment of plot; development/construction work; and also in the absence of execution of buyer’s agreement. They are not interested even in allotment of plots to the buyers. Under these circumstances, the complainants, in all the cases, were well within their right to stop making further payment in view of principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court of India in Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Mrs. Raj Mehta, Appeal (Civil) 5882 of 2002, decided on 24.09.2004, wherein it was held that if the builder is at fault in not delivering possession of the unit by the stipulated date, it cannot expect the allottee(s) to go on paying instalments to it. Similar view was also taken by the National Commission, in Prasad Homes Private Limited Vs. E.Mahender Reddy and Ors., 1 (2009) CPJ 136 (NC), wherein it was held that when development work was not carried out at the site, the payment of further installments was rightly stopped by the purchaser.         It has been noticed that apart from above objections, in the present case, various other stereotype pleas/objections have been taken by the opposite parties, which they have been taking in past, in almost all the consumer complaints filed in respect of the same project “Palm Garden”, Mullanpur, Punjab, already decided by this Commission such as limitation; time is not the essence of contract; project was delayed on account of force majeure circumstances like ban on mining; business rivalries etc.; exemption from the provisions of PAPRA after issuance of notification dated 25.01.2017; jurisdiction of this Commission is barred in view of provisions of PAPRA and RERA; only civil court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide this case; complainant  was defaulter in making payment etc. It may be stated here that all these objections/pleas taken by the opposite parties have been dealt with, by this Commission, in number of consumer complaints already decided and recently in Pankaj Goyal Vs. M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Limited and ors. consumer complaint no. 189 of 2018 , decided on 19.12.2018, as under:- “It is specifically brought to our notice, at the time of arguments, by Counsel for the complainant that as per Guidelines to launch project in the mega housing project, (Palm Garden situated in mega housing project), it is not open to the project proponent like the opposite parties, to sell the project to general public without getting proper sanctions/approvals from the Competent Authorities. Earlier also, this Commission has relied upon these Guidelines, in various other cases, filed by allottees of the project, in dispute. Condition no.4 of the said Guidelines reads thus:- “4 Conditions for grant of concessions:-           ……….           The project shall not be advertised/launched and no money will be collected from general public for allotment of land/plot/flat/any space till such time the layout/zoning plans are cleared from the competent authority and exemption u/s 44 of PAPRA is issued by the Government.”               It is mandated that the project can only be launched when layout/zoning plans are cleared from the Competent Authorities and exemption is granted from operation of the provisions of PAPRA, by the Government concerned. It was also so said in the ‘Letter of Intent’ for the Grant of Special Package of Incentives under Industrial Policy 2009, issued on 03.05.2013, issued in favour of the opposite parties, by the Chief Administrator, PUDA, SAS Nagar, Mohali.               At the time of arguments, it has also come to our notice that when the project was advertised and sold in the year 2011, the opposite parties were not even registered with the GMADA, SAS Nagar, as a qualified project proponent, to obtain license under Section 5 of the PAPRA. Certificate of Registration was granted by the GMADA only on 27.06.2014, permitting the opposite parties to setup a colony subject to their obtaining requisite licenses, as mandated under the provisions of PAPRA.               In view of above, contention of Counsel for the complainant that the project, in question, was sold without any permission(s)/sanction(s) from the Competent Authorities and also violating the provisions of Sections 4 (1) (a) and (b) and 6 of the PAPRA appears to be correct. The said provisions reads thus:-   “4. Issuing of advertisement or prospectus:- (1) No promoter shall issue an advertisement or prospectus, offering for sale any apartment or plot, or inviting persons who intend to take such apartments or plots to make advances or deposits, unless,- (a) the promoter holds a certificate of registration under sub-section (2) of section 21 and it is in force and has not been suspended or revoked, and its number is mentioned in the advertisement or prospectus; and (b) a copy of the advertisement or prospectus is filed in the office of the competent authority before its issue or publication………………”.   “6.(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, a promoter who intends to construct or constructs a building of apartments, all or some of which are to be taken or are taken on ownership basis, or who intends to offer for sale plots in a colony, shall, before he accepts any sum of money as advance payment or deposit, which shall not be more than twenty five per cent of the sale price, enter into a written agreement for sale with each of such persons who are to take or have taken such apartments, or plots, as the case may be, and the agreement shall be in the prescribed for together with prescribed documents and shall be registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act no. 16 of 1908);”             A question, as to whether, necessary permission/sanctions had been obtained by the opposite parties before launching this project, came up for consideration before this Commission, in Veena Ghai and anr. Vs. M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Construction s Pvt. Limited and anr., consumer complaint no. 659 of 2017 decided on 28.06.2018. This Commission held as under:- “The fact that the project was launched without obtaining necessary permissions/sanctions having been obtained from the Competent Authorities, is further fortified from a document of the opposite parties, placed on record as Annexure O-12 (at page 89 of the file), showing in a tabular format, as to by which dates, approvals, NOCs were granted to them, by the Competent Authorities. Relevant part of the said table is reproduced hereunder:-     Sr.No. Approval Dated   Approval of project 25.04.2013   NOC from Forest Department 14.07.2014   Approval of layout plan 06.10.2015   Approval of zoning plan 24.11.2015   Permission for solid water, sewerage and storm water disposal 06.07.2015   Approval of detailed project/services plans of roads, water supply, sewerage, storm water drainage, treated water supply and electrification 27.11.2015   Grant of  Consent to Establish (NOC) Water and Air 1.12.2015   NOC from Pollution Angle 15.02.2016   Environment Clearance 03.06.2016   NOC for electricity connection 15.03.2017   Extension of Grant of Consent (NOC) Water and Air 17.04.2017   Permission for Solid Waste Disposal and Storm Water Disposal 19.05.2017   Perusal of the aforextracted table clearly reveals that not even a single permission was available with the opposite parties, when the project, in question, was launched and sold to the customers, including the complainants, in March 2011. As such, the project, in question, was launched in complete derogation of the above said provisions.               Collecting money from the perspective buyers without obtaining the required permissions and sanctions is an unfair trade practice on the part of the project proponent. It is well settled law that it is duty of the builder to first obtain the requisite permissions and sanctions and only thereafter collect the consideration money from the purchasers. It was also so said by the National Commission, in a case titled as M/s Ittina Properties Pvt. Ltd. & 3 Ors. Vs. Vidya Raghupathi & Anr., First Appeal No. 1787 of 2016, decided on 31 May 2018. Relevant part of the said order reads thus:-
“…………….This Commission in Brig. (Retd.) Kamal Sood Vs. M/s. DLF Universal Ltd., (2007) SCC Online NCDRC 28, has observed that it is unfair trade practice on the part of the Builder to collect money from the perspective buyers without obtaining the required permission and that it is duty of the Builder to first obtain the requisite permissions and sanctions and only thereafter collect the consideration money from the purchasers.
It is an admitted fact that the sale deeds were executed in the year 2006 and by 2009 the completion certificate was not issued. The Occupancy Certificate was issued only on 25.09.2017 during the pendency of these Appeals before this Commission. Allotting Plots or Apartments before procuring the relevant sanctions and approvals is per se deficiency…………”   However, in the present case, the opposite parties did not place on record all the documents, referred to, in the table aforesaid. As such, an adverse inference can easily be drawn that had all the said documents been placed on record, the same would have gone against the interest of the opposite parties, as it would have been evident therefrom that when huge amount of Rs.13,87,500/- was received from the complainant in November 2011, they were not even owners of the land, whereupon the project was to be developed. This act amounts to grave unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.           Furthermore, amount accepted at the time of booking was more than 25% i.e. Rs. 13,87,500/- against Rs.46,25,000/- Thereafter also, more amount was received by the opposite parties and by 03.06.2014, total amount of Rs.30,06,250/- stood paid by the complainant. No Agreement was got signed, as is mandatory under the above said provisions. As such, there is a complete violation of the provisions of the PAPRA. It is an admitted case of the opposite parties that permission seeking exemption from the applicability of provisions of PAPRA has finally been granted only in the year 2017, which cannot be said to have any retrospective effect but on the other hand, will have prospective effect only. As such, it could very well be said that by selling the units without authority, the opposite parties violated the provisions of PAPRA, and the said violation amounts to adoption of an unfair trade practice, which is glaring and vivid on their part.                Similar controversy came up for consideration before this Commission, qua this project owned by the opposite parties, in the case of Shaminder Walia and another Vs. M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, Consumer Complaint no.918 of 2016, decided on 08.05.2017 (alongwith six connected cases). Noting similar contentions, this Commission observed as under:-
“To get a plot allotted in the project named as ‘Palm Garden’, first payment was received by the opposite party on 11.01.2012. It is virtually admitted on record that when the project was sold, not even a single permission was available with the opposite party. It is admitted in the written version that part of the project of the opposite party was approved much later, in the year March 2013. Formal Agreement was signed with the Govt. of Punjab on 14.06.2013. Thereafter, additional area was added and supplementary agreement was signed on 16.06.2016. Notification granting exemption from the applicability of the provisions of PAPRA was issued only on 25.01.2017. Perusal of the said notification makes it very clear that exemption given was conditional, as has been referred in para no.5 of the said notification. Besides other conditions, condition no.5 (iii to vii), reads thus:-
“(iii). The promoter shall deposit the entire amount in respect of the contribution to the Punjab Urban Development Fund, created under section 32 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulations Act, 1995 (Act No.14 of 1995), within a period of 30 days of the sanctioning of their layout plan.
(iv). The promoter shall acquire the ownership of project land in its name including land under agreement to develop and land under agreement to sell. The plots falling under land proposed to be acquired if any through Govt. acquisition, plot through which revenue rasta or khali passes shall not be developed and sold till these pockets are acquired and ownership is transferred in the name of the Promoter.
(v)      The plots/land to which the access is proposed through the land to be acquired if any by the Government shall not be developed and sold till that land under the access is acquired and transferred in the name of the promoter and access is provided.
(vi)     The promoter shall be responsible for obtaining the final NOC from Punjab Pollution Control Board.
(vii)     Before starting the development of the proposed project promoter shall obtain environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest Government of India as required under EIA notification dated 14.9.2006 as well as consent to establish (NOC) from the Punjab Pollution Control Board.”  
  It is specifically mentioned that before starting development of the proposed project, promoter was to obtain environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest Government of India, in terms of EIA notification dated 14.09.2006. There is nothing on record that such clearance was obtained by the opposite party. Further, it was also mentioned that requisite amount be paid towards Punjab Urban Development fund, within a period of 30 days, from the date of sanctioning of layout plans. No evidence has been placed on record, showing payment of the aforesaid amount. Furthermore, it is mandated that the promoter shall also be responsible for getting ‘No Objection Certificate’ from Punjab Pollution Control Board. No document exists on record, showing that such approval was obtained by the opposite party.”.           Admittedly, a copy of draft of buyer’s agreement was sent to the complainant, only via email dated 03.01.2018. However, on finding terms and conditions contrary to what was promised at the time of booking of the plot, in question, the same was not signed by the complainant. It has been found by this Commission, in almost all the cases filed against the Company, that buyer’s agreement was not sent to the allottees for their signatures, within a reasonable period. It was only when number of complaints had been filed against the opposite parties before this Commission, in which it was held that such an act amounts to unfair trade practice, they started sending buyer’s agreement and that too after a huge delay and also after receiving substantial amount. This act of the opposite parties certainly needs to be deprecated.           At the time of arguments, Sh.I.P. Singh, Advocate, argued with vehemence that issuance of notification dated 25.01.2017 granting exemption from the applicability of many provisions of PAPRA qua mega project, in question, will relate back to the year 2011, when application was filed to get licence, under the mega housing policy. In a way, it was said that when the above notification was issued, it ratifies all the mistakes/irregularities committed by the opposite parties, qua sale of plots in the year 2011, without obtaining necessary sanctions and approvals from the Competent Authorities. To say so, reliance has been placed upon the ratio of judgment in the case of M/s Murudeshwara Ceramics Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka, 2002 (1) SCC Page 116. 
              On perusal of the entire record and documents, we are not going to accept the said arguments. In the case of Shaminder Walia (supra), similar contention was raised and the same was rejected by this Commission, by observing as under:-
“It was contended by Counsel for the opposite party that after issuance of notification dated 25.01.2017 exempting applicability of many provisions of PAPRA qua mega project, the irregularities adopted by it qua sale of plots in the year 2012, etc. stands rectified. In para no.16 of its reply, it was specifically stated by the opposite party that irregularity in accepting expression of interest for sale of the plot in the said project, will have no adverse effect.
                We are not going to agree with the contention raised. There is nothing on record that the said notification is retrospective in nature. As stated above, when the project was sold, not even a single permission was available with the opposite party. The sale was made in contravention of the provisions of PAPRA and upon issuance of notification in the month of January 2017, violation committed or admitted irregularities made, cannot be rectified. Similar question qua this very project, came up for consideration before this Commission in  Sukhvinder Singh Hayer Vs. M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, Complaint case no.775 of 2016 decided on 23.03.2017 (02 connected cases), wherein it was observed as under:-
 “It is specifically mentioned that before starting development of the proposed project, promoter was to obtain environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest Government of India, in terms of EIA notification dated 14.09.2006. There is nothing on record that such clearance was obtained by the opposite party. Further, it was also mentioned that requisite amount be paid towards Punjab Urban Development fund, within a period of 30 days, from the date of sanctioning of layout plans. No evidence has been placed on record, showing payment of the aforesaid amount. Furthermore, it is mandated that the promoter shall also be responsible for getting No Objection Certificate from Punjab Pollution Control Board. No document exists on record, showing that such approval was obtained by the opposite party.  Contention of Counsel for the opposite party that notification dated 25.01.2017 exempting applicability of many provisions of PAPRA qua mega project, the sale of plots in the year 2011 etc. stands rectified. We are not going to agree with the contention raised. There is nothing on record that the said notification is retrospective in nature. When project was sold, not even a single permission was available with the opposite party. The sale was made in contravention of the provisions of PAPRA and upon issuance of notification in the month of January 2017, violation committed cannot be rectified. Similar question qua this very project, came up for consideration before this Commission in  Monika Vs. M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Construction Pvt. Limited, Complaint case no.251 of 2016 decided on 27.09.2016, wherein it was observed as under:-
“The pleadings of the parties indicate that when project was marketed and sold, not even a single permission was available with the project proponent/opposite party. There is a complete violation of the provisions of the PAPRA. It is an admitted case of the opposite party that application seeking exemption from the applicability of provisions of PAPRA is still pending under consideration, with the Authorities concerned. Unless exemption is granted, its violation would amount to adoption of an unfair trade practice, which is glaring and vivid on the part of the opposite party, in this complaint.
Qua a similar project launched by the opposite party in the same area, in  Appeal No.248 of 2016, decided on 31.08.2016, titled as M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited Vs. Sh.Tilak Raj Bakshi, under similar circumstances, this Commission, while dismissing the said appeal, has observed as under:-
“The documents placed on record clearly show that the project was launched without getting any permission from the Competent Authorities. Detailed brochure was issued showing facilities to be made available in the project launched and its layout plan. It is also on record that when it came to the notice of GMADA that the plots/flats are being sold unauthorizedly by the appellant, it gave a notice in the newspaper ‘Hindustan Times’ dated 18.08.2012, which reads thus:-
                “PUBLIC NOTICE This is for the information of one and all that it has come to the notice of the Competent Authority that one company named as M/s Manohar Singh & Co. is allegedly booking/selling plots in the Mullanpur- Siswan region near Chandigarh border in the State of Punjab. This is being intimated that the above said project is not approved by the State Government. The Competent Authority is initiating legal proceedings in this regard.
If anybody has booked or purchased any plot in the locality mentioned above he/she is advised to contact the undersigned along with documentary proof for further legal action against the said promoter. Further, while buying any plot in any locality falling under the jurisdiction of GMADA, all are advised to visit the website www.gmada.gov.in to verify if the colony/project is approved or not.
Chief Administrator GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, SAS Nagar”.
It is specifically stated in the notice dated 18.08.2012 that the appellant was allegedly booking/selling the plots in Mullanpur, near Chandigarh Border, in the State of Punjab, unauthorizedly. It was further stated that the project is not approved by the Competent Authority and it (Competent Authority) is initiating legal proceedings against the project proponent for its activity. Above said notice makes it very clear that when the plot was sold on 13.04.2012, the project was not approved by the Competent Authorities. It is also so reflected in the details given by the appellant with this appeal, which is available at page 33 of the paper book. Reading of above said document, makes it very clear that the project was approved by the Government on 25.04.2013; Letter of Intent (LOI) was issued on 03.05.2013; Change of Land Use (CLU) certificate was granted on 31.03.2014; project was registered on 21.06.2014; No Objection Certificate by the District Forest Officer, SAS Nagar, Mohali, was issued on 14.07.2014; Zoning plan was approved by the Chief Town Planner, Punjab on 24.11.2015 and Detailed Project Report (DPR)/Service Plans were approved by the Chief Engineer, GMADA, Mohali, on 27.11.2015. As per established law, if the project proponent sells the project without obtaining necessary permissions or clear title of the acquired land, it would amount to adopting unfair trade practice. It was so said by the Hon’ble National Commission in  Atul Maheshwari and ors. Vs. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority, II (2016) CPJ 623 (NC). Relevant portion of the said judgment reads thus:-
“OP should not have announced the scheme, until or unless they got clear title of the acquired land”.
 Similar view was expressed by the National Commission in  Emerging India Real Assets Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Kamer Chand and another, Revision-Petition No.756 of 2016, decided on 30.03.2016. In that case, when upholding the findings given by this Commission, that the project cannot be even marketed before getting approvals/sanctions, from the Competent Authorities, to launch it, it was observed by the National Commission, as under:-
 “We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the ld. counsel.  While affirming the order passed by the District Forum and commenting and deprecating the conduct of the opposite parties in the complaint, in launching the project and selling the farmhouses, even without obtaining sanction/approval from the competent authority, the State Commission has observed as follows:-
If a marketing agency sells out a project, for which, no approvals/sanctions have been granted by the Govt. Authorities, the said agency has to face the music and consequences of duping the gullible buyers, of their hard-earned money. In the public notice, it has specifically been mentioned by the GMADA that respondent no.2 and appellant no.1 are the sister concern. It is also apparent on record that before appellant no.1 started marketing the project, not even an application has been filed by respondent no.2, to get approval/sanction from the competent authorities, to launch the project. The information supplied vide letter dated 26.08.2014, referred to above, clearly states that not even a single application qua granting sanction to the project, has been received and dealt with, by the Competent Authority. In connivance with each other, the appellants and respondent no.2 committed a criminal offence of cheating. As per established law, builder cannot sell its property, unless and until proper approvals/sanctions have been obtained by it, from the Competent Authorities. It appears from the reading of documents on record that instead of selling a unit in a project, respondent no.2 in a very arbitrary manner, sold its share in a joint land measuring approx. 3807 acres, bearing hadbast No.326, Khewat No.92, Khatauni no.254-352, at Village Mirzapur, District Mohali, Punjab. There is nothing on record that said land was ever partitioned.
6.    We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the State Commission.  As noted above, the petitioners happen to be body corporate.  Before offering the farmhouses in the said project as Agent of Respondent No. 2, they must be aware about the status of the sanction for launch of the project.  Therefore, it is beyond one’s comprehension that the present Petitioner was not aware about the actual state of affairs for which only the developer could be held responsible.”
                In the present case also, there is nothing on record that when expression of interest/applications were invited to sell the said project, clear intimation was given to the intending purchasers that the project sold was in infancy stage and it will take years together before necessary permissions will be provided by the Competent Authorities.”
          In the present case also, as stated above, there is nothing on record to show that when the project, in question, was launched and sold, any permission was available with the opposite parties. It is also not proved on record that the said fact of selling the project without permissions/approvals was brought to the notice of the intending purchasers. The purchasers were not informed that it will take years for obtaining necessary sanctions and approvals, after sale of the said project. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that when notification dated 25.01.2017 granting exemption to the opposite parties from the applicability of some provisions of the PAPRA was granted, violations committed were brought to the notice of the Competent Authorities/Govt. The mega housing policy and the provisions of PAPRA debars any builder to advertise and sell the project before getting necessary sanctions. Merely because in some newspaper, a notice had appeared on behalf of the GMADA intimating the general public that Manohar Singh and Company is selling the project unauthorizedly, would not amount to intimation to the Competent Authorities i.e. the Govt. of Punjab, that the opposite parties have committed many mistakes, while selling the project, in question. Had those mistakes been brought to the notice of the Competent Authorities, at the relevant time, the license to launch the said project, was bound to be rejected, being in violation of provisions of the PAPRA; Special Package of Incentives under Industrial Policy 2009 and mega housing policy. Any ratification is possible, in case, the mistake committed is brought to the notice of the Competent Authorities. Thereafter only the Competent Authorities by passing a conscious order can ratify the said mistake. In the present case, merely issuance of notification aforesaid, by the Competent Authorities, on 25.01.2017, would not ratify the mistakes committed in law by the opposite parties.
          Such a contention also came up for consideration, before this Commission in Shaminder Walia’s case (supra) and it was rejected by observing as under:-
“It was vehemently contended by Counsel for the opposite party that once exemption from the applicability of the provisions of PAPRA stood granted in the year January 2017, it will relate back to the date of launching of the project, and all irregularities stands rectified. To support above said contention, he has placed reliance on the ratio of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, titled as  M/s Murudeshwara Ceramics Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka, 2002 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 130.
                We are not going to accept the arguments raised. It has already been held in  Sukhvinder Singh Hayer` case (supra) that upon issuance of notification in the month of January 2017, granting exemption from the applicability of the provisions of PAPRA, violation committed prior thereto, cannot be rectified. To so say, in  Sukhvinder Singh Hayer` case (supra), reliance was also placed upon the judgment passed by this Commission in  Monika`s case (supra). The said finding was given in consonance with the findings of the National Commission in  Emerging India Real Assets Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Kamer Chand and another`s case (supra).
                As far as the reliance placed by Counsel for the opposite party on  M/s Murudeshwara Ceramics` case (supra) is concerned, we have gone through the facts of the same very carefully and found that the same were altogether different from the facts of the present case. In the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, when interpreting the provisions of Section 109 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, it was stated that power of the Government to grant exemption with regard to the land, in any area from operation of some of the provisions of the Act, for using the said land for a particular purpose, are to be seen, not at the time of sale/purchase of the land in dispute, but at the time, when it was going to be put for the said use. It was noted that after sale of the land, in dispute, when it was going to be put for industrial use, exemption already stood granted. The position is altogether different; as in the present case, by indulging into selling the project without any sanctions in its hands, the opposite party has committed unfair trade practice, as defined in Section 2 (1) (c) (i) and (iii) of the CP Act.
                It is apparent on record that in the year 2012, activities of the opposite party in selling the project, without any sanction were noticed by the Competent Authorities and on 18.08.2012, as a result whereof, notice was published in a newspaper, stating that such sale was illegal. Copy of newspaper dated 18.08.2012, in which the said public notice was issued by the GMADA, is placed on record as Annexure C-10, in  consumer complaint bearing no.890 of 2016, titled as Sheela Devi and another Vs. Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Private Limited.”.
               In the case of Shaminder Walia (supra), it was vehemently contended that M/s Manohar Singh and Co. and the opposite parties namely M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Ltd., are two different identities and notice issued in the said newspaper qua M/s Manohar Singh and Co. will not have any effect, so far, the project of the opposite parties (M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Ltd.) is concerned. The said contention was rejected by this Commission, by placing reliance upon various documents and the photographs.               In the present case, it was fairly admitted by Sh.I.P. Singh, Advocate, that the opposite parties are part and parcel of M/s Manohar Singh and Co. Above fact clearly demonstrates that the GMADA, when came to know about unauthorized sale of a project, issued a notice asking general public not to purchase any property from the opposite parties and also contemplated a legal action. However, it appears that no such legal action was taken against the opposite parties. It may be on account of connivance of the opposite parties with Offices of the said Authority.       
          Further contention of Counsel for the complainant is that amount was received without offering Buyer’s Agreement for signing, within a reasonable period say two or three months. This fact is not seriously disputed. It is only said that since the complainant had already been provided with copy of draft of the agreement on 03.01.2018, he may come forward for execution of the same. As per the provisions of Section 6 of the PAPRA, it is incumbent upon the project proponent to execute Buyer’s Agreement on accepting application for purchase of unit etc., within a reasonable time say about two to three months. By not offering Buyer’s Agreement, for signing within reasonable time, the opposite parties committed unfair trade practice and also were deficient in providing service. It was also earlier so said by this Commission, in a case titled as  Usha Kiran Ghangas Vs DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, Complaint Case No.93 of 2016, decided on 02.06.2016. Relevant portion of the said case, reads thus:-
“The opposite parties are also guilty of adoption of unfair trade practice. It is on record that the complainant booked the unit, in question, in the project aforesaid, on 16.02.2011. She was allotted unit, vide letter dated  23.02.2011, on which date, she had paid an amount of Rs.4 lacs. Buyer’s Agreement was not put for signing in a reasonable time, say two  to three months. She continued to make payment and when Buyer’s Agreement was got signed, on 18.08.2011, she had already paid an amount of Rs.21,68,524/-. By not offering Buyer’s Agreement, for signing in a reasonable time, the opposite parties also committed unfair trade practice. The complainant is a widow. Her interest needs to be protected”.
              As such, in the present case, by not offering Buyer’s Agreement, for signing in a reasonable time, and at the same time sending the same after an inordinate delay i.e. only on 03.01.2018 and that too with terms and conditions heavily loaded/one sided, the opposite parties committed unfair trade practice and are also deficient in providing service.           At the time of arguments, it was also vehemently contended by Sh.I.P. Singh, Advocate for the opposite parties that application to get mega project approved, was filed in the year 2011. Delay occurred on account of laxity on the part of the bureaucrats/Competent Authorities in granting permissions/approvals and further it was deliberately delayed, because of rivalry existing between the political party in power and the Managing Director/Directors of the Company.               Such a plea has been taken just to raise it without any material on record. It may be stated here that if the application to get necessary permissions, was moved in the year 2011 before the Competent Authorities, what happened thereafter; whether any objection was raised; whether at any point of time, it was taken up with the Authorities concerned, to give permission(s), within three months, as per Rules or not, has not been made clear. There is nothing on record that when the Competent Authorities allegedly did not grant permissions/approvals and delayed the matter, any reminders were sent to them, to do the needful. Not even a single document has been placed on record that the Competent Authorities delayed the matter deliberately, despite the fact that necessary steps were taken at the end of the opposite parties, for obtaining requisite permissions, for launching and selling the said project. At the same time, there is nothing on record, whether any Officer(s) of the Management of this Company was/were the member(s) of any political party; they ever contested any election; and whether question of rivalry causing delay on account of political reasons was ever taken up before the Competent Fora/Court of Law. It is on record that to get necessary permission qua the land in the project, applications were moved in parts. The opposite parties continued to purchase land and continued moving the applications, to the Authorities. In this view of the matter, the plea taken by the opposite parties, stands rejected.           A plea was also taken by the opposite parties, in their written version, to the effect that delay in delivery of possession of the plot was caused on account of ban on mining, as such, building material such as sand etc., remained short to an extent, meaning thereby that it had encountered force majeure circumstances.
              It may be stated here that as regards the alleged shortage of construction material like sand etc. in the market, nothing has been placed on record, by the opposite parties, to prove that it was unable to procure the said construction material, in adequate quantity. There is no evidence of the opposite parties having invited tenders for supply of construction material and there being no response to such tenders. A similar plea for delay in delivery of possession of the units, was taken by a builder, before the Hon`ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in Consumer Case No.347 of 2014, titled as Swaran Talwar & 2 others v. M/s Unitech Limited (along three connected complaints),  decided on 14 Aug 2015,  which was rejected and the complaint was allowed in favour of the complainant. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case is fully applicable to be present case. In the present case also, the opposite parties failed to convince this Commission, that they actually encountered force majeure circumstances, as a result whereof, delay in handing over possession of the unit occurred. As such, the stand taken by the opposite parties, in this regard, is rejected.
          xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. 
          The next question that falls for consideration, is as to whether, the complainant is entitled to refund of the amount paid or not. It may be stated here that the plot, in question, was booked by the complainant, as far as back in October 2011 on making payment of booking amount of Rs.13,87,500/-. Thereafter, another amount was paid and by 03.06.2014 total amount of Rs.30,06,250/- stood paid to the opposite parties. Whereas, on the other hand, it is an admitted fact that even as on today, the project is not fully developed. The opposite parties while relying on some photographs are still saying that development at the project site is going on and near completion. However, photographs placed on record by the opposite parties themselves, reveal that still it will take a long time for completing the development work. It can easily be revealed from the said photographs that still, lot of development work is pending to be done, as far as the roads etc. are concerned. Sanitary/sewerage pipes and electric wires are found lying in open ground. It can be adjudged from the photographs, that entrance of the project has been beautified, to allure the innocent customers. Photographs itself prove the position of the project, as in 2018.  At the same time, it is very significant to mention here that the plot was booked in the year 2011 and now it is December 2018. Still the opposite parties are saying that the complainant can come forward for execution of the Agreement meaning thereby that he will have to wait for more years, to get his plot because after that the opposite parties will say that he cannot file a complaint before the expiry of period of handing over the plot, as mentioned therein (Agreement), it being premature. Under these circumstances, it can be said that there is a material violation in providing service, on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant cannot be made to wait for an indefinite period, for delivery of possession of the plot purchased by him. The opposite parties, therefore, had no right, to retain the hard-earned money of the complainant, deposited towards price of the plot. It is a settled law that when there is a material violation on the part of the builder, in not handing over possession by the stipulated date, the purchaser is not bound to accept the offer, even if the same is made at a belated stage and on the other hand, can seek refund of amount paid. It was so said by the Hon’ble National Commission, in a case titled as Aashish Oberai Vs. Emaar M GF Land Limited, Consumer Case N o . 70 of 2015, decided on 14 Sep 2016, wherein, under similar circumstances, while negating the plea taken by the builder, it was held  as under:-
“I am in agreement with the learned senior counsel for the complainants that considering the default on the part of opposite parties no.1 and 2 in performing its contractual obligation, the complainants cannot be compelled to accept the offer of possession at this belated stage and therefore, is entitled to refund the entire amount paid by him along with reasonable compensation, in the form of interest.”
  Not only as above, in a case titled as Brig Ajay Raina (Retd.) and another Vs. M/s Unitech Limited, Consumer Complaint No. 59 of 2016, decided on 24.05.2016, wherein possession was offered after a long delay, this Commission, while relying upon the judgments rendered by the Hon`ble National Commission, ordered refund to the complainants, while holding as under:-
“Further, even if, it is assumed for the sake of arguments, that offer of possession, was made to the complainants, in July 2015 i.e. after a delay of about three years, from the stipulated date, even then, it is not obligatory upon the complainants to accept the same.
  Furthermore, in another case titled as M/s. Emaar MGF Land Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Dr.Manuj Chhabra, First Appeal No.1028 of 2015, decided on 19.04.2016, the Hon’ble National Commission, under similar circumstances, held as under:-
“I am of the prima facie view that even if the said offer was genuine, yet, the complainants was not obliged to accept such an offer, made after a lapse of more than two years of committed date of delivery”.
  The above view taken by the National Commission, has been reiterated by it, recently in the case titled as Sujay Bharatiya & Anr. Vs. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd., Consumer Case No. 1814 of 2017 decided on 05.07.2018. Relevant part of the said order reads thus:-
“This Commission in Emaar MGF Land Ltd. & Anr. V. Amit Puri (First Appeal No.250 of 2014), decided on 30.03.2015, has held that if the Developer fails to deliver possession of the allotted plot/flat within the stipulated time, the allottee is under no obligation to accept an alternative plot. At the cost of repetition, we may reiterate that in the event of Developer failing to deliver possession of the property within the stipulated period, for any reason, save and except a force majeure condition, agreed to between the contracting parties, an allottee cannot be compelled to accept an alternate site/plot and he would be within his rights to seek refund of the amount deposited with the Developer against allotment”.
However, in the present case, as stated above, possession of the plot has not even been offered, what to speak of delay in offering thereof. The complainant, is, thus, entitled to get refund of amount deposited by him. In view of above facts of the case, the opposite parties are also under an obligation to compensate the complainant, for inflicting mental agony and causing physical harassment to him, as also escalation in prices.
          Further contention was raised by Counsel for the opposite parties that in the face of supplementary agreement dated 16.06.2016, whereby the Govt. of Punjab, has granted permission to complete the project by 13.06.2018, and thereafter, further extension has been granted to them, by RERA to complete the project till 31.07.2019, as such, the complainant was to be handed over possession of the plot, on or before that date.               First coming to the Supplementary Agreement dated 16.06.2016, it may be stated here that we have gone through the contents thereof, and are of the considered opinion that it is of no help to the opposite parties, as far delay in delivery of possession of the plot, in question, to the complainant is concerned. The said Agreement was signed between the opposite parties and the Govt. of Punjab, only in relation to permission sought by them (opposite parties), vide letter dated 25.08.2015 (after about more than three and a half years of booking of the present plot), for addition of 94.60 acres of more land in the project area. It was on account of this reason, that supplementary agreement was executed.               At the same time, if this plea taken by the opposite parties that since supplementary agreement was executed on 16.06.2016 between them and the Govt. of Punjab and as such, now they (opposite parties) are liable to hand over possession of the plot to the complainant latest by 13.06.2018 (date already expired), is considered in favour of the opposite parties, then it would amount to admittance on their (opposite parties) part that till 16.06.2016, they were not in possession of the land even, but on the other hand, they had booked a plot and received 30% of the price of the plot, as far as back in 2011 and thereafter further amount till 03.06.2014. Furthermore, it is not clarified by the opposite parties that if the land for plot was ultimately got in their hands, by way of supplementary agreement dated 16.06.2016, then for which land, they were talking about in the application acknowledgment receipt dated 24.10.2011 Annexure C-3 issued in favour of the complainant, saying that all layout plans, specification and other details are tentative. If this is so, it amounts to grave unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, as they had received an amount of Rs.13,87,500/- against a plot by November 2011, but on the other hand, till 15.06.2016, they have not even acquired land for the same (plot).                Now coming to the letter dated 13.07.2018, Annexure O-2, we have gone through the same and found that extension has been granted to the opposite parties by RERA only with regard to registration of the project. This letter cannot be made a basis to say that the opposite parties were given any immunity out of the deficiencies and unfair trade practice, adopted by them, in respect of the plot, in dispute. Even otherwise, the said extension of registration has been given in respect of the project namely “The Palm (Palm Downtown/Palm Central Bay)” and not the Palm Garden.               Sequence of events narrated above, clearly goes to prove that the conduct of the opposite parties, throughout remained contumacious. As stated above, not even a single permission to launch the project was available with the opposite parties at the relevant time. As has been discussed in earlier part of this order, permissions continued to pour in, upto the year 2017. Even as on today, there is nothing on record to show that development at the site is complete. It can safely be said that the complainant was well within his right, to file this complaint. It was nowhere agreed to between the parties, at the time of booking of the said plot, that the complainant can be made to wait for an indefinite period.               At the same time, in the face of plea having been taken by the opposite parties that they were required to deliver possession of the plot to the complainant by 13.06.2018, as per the terms and conditions of the supplementary Agreement, or by 31.07.2019, referred to above, as such, in the same breath taking a plea that the present case is beyond limitation or that time is not to be considered as essence of the contract, is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is accordingly rejected. Even otherwise, it is not the proven case of the opposite parties that they were ready with delivery of possession of the plot, within a reasonable period of about two to three years, from the date of booking or say by 13.06.2018 even, but the complainant, failed to take the same, on account of some personal grounds/ financial constraints. It is settled law that in the cases, where possession of the residential units is not offered by the builder, there is a continuing cause of action, in favour of the allottee/purchaser.  
          Further contention was raised by Counsel for the opposite parties that in the face of provisions of the RERA, under which the opposite parties have registered the project, in question, on 15.09.2017, it is not open to this Commission, to entertain and decide the present complaint. He further asserted that sufficient safeguard is provided under the provisions of RERA and if the complainant is feeling aggrieved of any action, on the part of the opposite parties, he may approach under the said Act (RERA) and not under the Act, 1986.               We are not inclined to accept this argument. At the time of arguments, it is very fairly admitted by Counsel for the contesting parties, that the provisions of RERA are prospective in nature. It was also so said by the High Court of Bombay in the case of NeelKamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors. 2018 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 298. It is an admitted fact that under the RERA, the opposite parties got themselves registered their project, only on 15.09.2017. Some of the provisions of RERA came into operation on 01.05.2016 and even the remaining of it, in May 2017. In all, the grievance has been raised by the complainant qua wrongful act/mistake done leading to deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice, in selling the project by the opposite parties without sanctions/approvals, before coming into existence of RERA. Reading of the provisions of Section 88 of RERA makes it very clear that the same are in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Section 79 of the RERA further makes it very clear that jurisdiction of only the Civil Court to entertain a suit or proceedings qua action taken as per the provisions of the said Act, is barred.               It may be stated here that the Consumer Foras under the Act, 1986 despite having some trappings of a Civil Court are not the Civil Courts. As such, the jurisdiction of the Consumer Foras is not debarred, to entertain the complaints filed by consumers, alleging deficiency in providing service, negligence and adoption of unfair trade practice against the opposite parties. Intention of the framers of law has been made clear by the concerned Department i.e. Ministry of Housing and Urban Property Alleviation, Government of India in its website www.mygov.in/group/ministry-housing-and-urban-poverty-alleviation. Under Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), at Sr.nos. 85 and 86, it was observed as under:-
  “85. Are the civil courts and consumer forums barred from entertaining disputes under the Act? As per section 79 of the Act civil courts are barred from entertaining disputes (suits or proceedings) in respect of matters which the Authority or the adjudicating officer or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered under the Act to determine. However, the consumer forums (National, State or District) have not been barred from the ambit of the Act. Section 71 proviso permits the complainant to withdraw his complaint as regards matters under section 12, 14, 18 and section 19, from the consumer forum and file it with the adjudicating officer appointed under the Act.   86. Can a complainant approach both the Regulatory Authority/adjudicating officer and the consumer forums for the same disputes?
The laws of the country do not permit forum shopping, thus, an aggrieved can only approach one of the two for disputes over the same matter.”
                It was also so said by the State of Punjab in its Official Website Portal rera.punjab.gov.in. The above fact clearly indicates that in the face of provisions of the RERA, any action taken under the provisions of Act 1986 is not debarred.  
              Be that as it may, a similar question came up for consideration, before this Commission, when considering the applicability of the provisions of Section 8 (amended) of Arbitration Act 1996 Act viz a viz CPA 1986, in the case of  ‘Sarbjit Singh Vs. Puma Realtors Private Limited’, IV (2016) CPJ 126, wherein, while relying upon ratio of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, titled as  Fair Air Engg. Pvt. Ltd. & another Vs. N. K. Modi (1996) 6  SCC 385, C.C.I Chambers Coop. Housing Society Ltd. Vs Development Credit Bank Ltd. (2003) 7 SCC 233,  Rosedale Developers Private Limited Vs. Aghore Bhattacharya and others, (Civil Appeal No.20923 of 2013), Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha   (2004) 1 SCC 305 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pushpalaya Printers, I (2004) CPJ 22 (SC),  and LIC of India and another Vs. Hira Lal, IV (2011) CPJ 4 (SC),  it was held that even in the face of existence of arbitration clause in an Agreement/Allotment Letter, to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitration, in terms of provisions of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint.               It was authoritatively said that in view of Section 3 of the Act 1986, it is open to the consumers to approach the Consumer Foras, for redressal of their grievance, notwithstanding that he/she can get relief under any other Act. Similar findings, to the effect that an Arbitration Clause in the Agreements between the complainant(s) and the Builder cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of a Consumer Fora, notwithstanding the amendments made to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Civil Appeal bearing No.23512-23513 of 2017, vide order dated 13.02.2018.
               In view of above findings, we can safely say that provision of the RERA and PAPRA will not debar the jurisdiction of this Commission in entertaining the complaints filed by a consumer alleging deficiency in providing service, negligence and adoption of unfair trade practice, on the part of the opposite parties.
          In the present case, an attempt has been made to by-pass the above provision of PAPRA by showing the sale as an expression of interest to purchase a plot. It has been so said before this Commission, at the time of arguments, by Counsel for the opposite parties that sale of the plot has not yet been confirmed. It may be stated here that it was an outright sale, when first payment of Rs.13,87,500/- was accepted by the opposite parties, in the year 2011 and thereafter also they kept on demanding amount from the complainant, and by June 2014, Rs.30,06,250/- stood paid, towards price of the said plot. Above said contention raised by Counsel for the opposite parties, qua similar project, was rejected by this Commission, in Appeal No.248 of 2016, decided on 31.08.2016, titled as M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited Vs. Sh.Tilak Raj Bakshi, wherein it was observed as under:-
“Furthermore, as is evident from the documents on record, the appellant is also guilty of violation of Section 6 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, (in short the PAPRA Act). In a very deceptive manner, an attempt has been made to show actual sale of plot, as an expression of interest. As has been held in earlier part of this order, vide document Annexure C-2, the terms and conditions of sale settled to make payment was also made available. Once it is so, by not offering the Buyers Agreement for signing in a reasonable time, say two to three months but on the other hand, after a lapse of many years of the sale of plot, the appellant has committed an unfair trade practice.”
            It is evident from the facts mentioned above that when the project in question was sold, neither CLU nor any other permission was available with the opposite parties. The Agreement was entered into with the Govt. only on 14.06.2013, to launch this project and that too, subject to many conditions. It is also on record that to get necessary permission qua land in the project, applications were moved in parts. Opposite parties continued to purchase land and continued moving the applications, to the Authorities. Facts clearly indicate that the opposite parties were guilty of launching a project against mandate of law.           In view of above, contention of Counsel for the opposite parties that since the complainant himself has showed preference for a plot, after expression of interest was filled by him and he waited for allotment of a plot, as such, delay if any will be deemed to have been waived of by him, stands rejected. There is nothing on record to show that plot was selected by the complainant and further when the plot was sold, not even a single permission was available with the opposite parties. There is also nothing on record to show that delay caused was condoned by the complainant. The opposite parties also cannot take shelter under the plea that time is not to be considered as essence of the contract.           It is to be further seen, as to whether, interest, on the amount refunded, can be granted, in favour of the complainant. It is not in dispute that the amount aforesaid, was paid by the complainant, without getting anything, in lieu thereof. Already a period of more than six years has lapsed, the complainant is still empty handed. It is well settled law that whenever money has been received by a party and when its refund is ordered, the right to get interest follows, as a matter of course. The obligation to refund money received and retained without right implies and carries with it, the said right. It was also so said by the Hon`ble Supreme Court of India, in UOI vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd (Supreme Court), (2014) 6 SCC 335. In view of above, the complainant is certainly entitled to get refund of the amount deposited, alongwith interest on the deposited amount, from the respective dates of payments actually made by him.   
          At the same time, it is also held that no complicated question of facts and law are involved in this case. It is a simple case of non-execution of agreement within the reasonable time; non-allotment of plot; and non-delivery of possession of the plot(s)/unit(s) purchased by the complainant, in the project of the opposite parties. This is a case of deficiency in providing service and also adoption unfair trade practice. This Commission is, therefore, competent to adjudicate the present complaint. Plea taken by the opposite parties, in this regard, as such, stands rejected.           It has further been vehemently contended by Sh.I.P. Singh, Advocate, that possession of the plot will be offered on signing of buyer’s agreement by the complainant, copy of which has already been supplied to him, on 03.01.2018. He may come and do so. It may be stated here that once it has been held above that the opposite parties indulged into unfair trade practice and were also deficient in providing service, as they failed to obtain necessary permissions to launch and sell the said project and also there has been an inordinate delay in handing over possession of the plot(s), as such, now at this stage, this stand has no significant value in the eyes of law.
          As far as plea taken by the opposite parties to the effect that the complainant was defaulter in making payment towards price of the said unit, it may be stated here that once it has been proved on record that the opposite parties are guilty of delay in completing the project and even as on today the complainant is empty handed, as such, in those circumstances, it is not expected from the complainant to keep on making payments to them. Still, the complainant had paid about 65% of sale consideration against the said plot.  If the complainant has not made the remaining amount towards price of the said plot, in our considered opinion, he was well within his right, to do so, in view of principle of law laid down in Prasad Homes Private Limited Vs. E.Mahender Reddy and Ors., 1 (2009) CPJ 136 (NC), wherein it was held that when development work was not carried out at the site, the payment of further installments can be stopped by the purchaser. As such, plea taken by the opposite parties, in this regard, stands rejected.”
          In the present cases also, no such document has been produced on record by the opposite parties, which could persuade this Commission to deviate from the findings, what have been given in Pankaj Goyal `s case supra. As such, in view of order of this Commission passed in Pankaj Goyal `s case supra, findings whereof are also applicable to the present cases being the objections/pleas taken by the opposite parties, of same nature in respect of the same project “Palm Garden”, the complainants, in all the complaints, are entitled to refund of the amount deposited, alongwith suitable interest, compensation and litigation expenses, which will be awarded in succeeding part of this order.
        However, at the time of arguments, Counsel for the opposite parties, while placing reliance on DLF Homes Panchkula (P) Ltd. vs Sushila Devi, decided on 26 February, 2019 (CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2285-2330 of 2019 (@ SLP(C) NOS.928-930, 932-938, 940-967 and 969-976 of 2019), vehemently contended that since in this case, the Supreme Court of India has awarded interest @9% p.a., on the amount so refunded therein, as such, this Commission cannot grant interest beyond that, in the present cases also. We do not agree with the contention raised for the reasons recorded hereinafter. It may be stated here that we have gone through the contents of DLF Homes Panchkula (P) Ltd.`s case (supra) and found that the order passed therein, with regard to award of interest @9% p.a. on the amount to be refunded, was on the ground that all the parties therein agreed that the  appeal be disposed of in terms of the directions issued by the Supreme Court of India in earlier case i.e. Himanshu Arora’s case (Civil Appeal Nos. 11097- 11138 of 2018, were disposed of by this Court on 19.11.2018), wherein, the parties did not raise any objection with regard to grant of interest @9% p.a.. Whereas, on the other hand, in the present case, Counsel for the complainant(s), in all the six consumer complaints has prayed that the complainants be granted interest, as sought for by them, in their respective complaints, as the deficiency in providing service, negligence and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, is writ large. Under these circumstances, plea taken by Counsel for the opposite parties, in this regard, stands rejected.
        No other point was urged by the contesting parties.
        As such, all these six consumer complaints are partly accepted, with costs, with following directions:-
  In Consumer complaint bearing no. 449 of 2018, opposite parties no.1 to 3, jointly and severally are directed as under:-
  To refund the amount of Rs.27,00,000/-, to the complainant, alongwith interest @13% p.a.,  from the respective  dates  of  deposits onwards.
  To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.75,000/- for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant, as also escalation in prices.
  To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant.
  In Consumer complaint bearing no. 450 of 2018, opposite parties no.1 to 3, jointly and severally are directed as under:-
  To refund the amount of Rs.40,95,000/-, to the  complainants, alongwith interest @13% p.a.,  from the respective  dates  of  deposits onwards.
  To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1,25,000/- for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainants, as also escalation in prices.
  To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.35,000/- to the complainants.
  Complaint against opposite party no.4 is dismissed with no order as to costs.
  In Consumer complaint bearing no. 461 of 2018, opposite parties no.1 to 3, jointly and severally are directed as under:-
  To refund the amount of Rs.22,50,000/-, to the  complainants, alongwith interest @13% p.a.,  from the respective  dates  of  deposits onwards.
  To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.75,000/- for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainants, as also escalation in prices.
  To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.22,000/- to the complainants.
  In Consumer complaint bearing no. 472 of 2018, opposite parties no.1 to 3, jointly and severally are directed as under:-
  To refund the amount of Rs.13,50,000/-, to the  complainants, alongwith interest @13% p.a.,  from the respective  dates  of  deposits onwards.
  To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainants, as also escalation in prices.
  To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.11,000/- to the complainants.
  In Consumer complaint bearing no. 09 of 2019, opposite parties no.1 to 3, jointly and severally are directed as under:-
  To refund the amount of Rs.23,00,000/-, to the  complainant, alongwith interest @13% p.a.,  from the respective  dates  of  deposits onwards.
  To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.75,000/- for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant, as also escalation in prices.
  To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.22,000/- to the complainant.
  In Consumer complaint bearing no. 10 of 2019, opposite parties no.1 to 3, jointly and severally are directed as under:-
  To refund the amount of Rs.23,00,000/-, to the  complainant, alongwith interest @13% p.a.,  from the respective  dates  of  deposits onwards.
  To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.75,000/- for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant, as also escalation in prices.
  To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.22,000/- to the complainant.
          The payment of awarded amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(i) to (iii) above, shall be made in the above complaints, respectively, in the manner ordered above, by opposite parties no.1 to 3, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the amount mentioned at sr.no.(i) thereafter shall carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of @13%, from the date of default and interest @13% p.a., on the amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(ii) and (iii), respectively, from the date of filing of respective complaints, till realization.      
        However, it is made clear that, if the complainant(s) in any of the above complaints, have availed loan facility from any banking or financial institution, for making payment towards their respective plots, it will have first charge of the amount payable, to the extent, the same is due to be paid by them (respective complainants).
        Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge and one copy be placed in connected files.
        The files be consigned to Record Room, after completion Pronounced.
04.07.2019 Sd/-
[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)] PRESIDENT     Sd/-
 (PADMA PANDEY)         MEMBER     Sd/-
 (RAJESH K. ARYA)  MEMBER Rg.
     

News Reporter

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: