MANISH JAIN & 2 ORS. v. M/S. RAMPRASTHA PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & 5 ORS.

by the Opposite Parties, applied for an Apartment in the housing project titled "RISE" in the township of RP City, Sector 37-D, Gurgaon, Haryana, floated by the Opposite Parties. It is averred that the Complainants were informed that the Opposite Parties were allotted 60.5112 acres land in village Gadauli Kalan, Tehsil & District, Gurgaon, Haryana, Sector 37-D, Gurgaon, Haryana. The Complainants were allotted Unit No. 1303, at 13^thfloor of Tower C measuring 1765 sq. ft. The Builder Buyers Agreement dated 22.08.2012 was entered into between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties, wherein the total sale consideration was fixed at ₹82,83,311/-, the promised date of delivery of possession being September, 2015. It is averred that out of the total sale consideration the Complainant paid a sum of ₹68,60,316/-. It is averred that the Builder Buyers Agreement was an already prepared Agreement with one sided terms and some of the Clauses were totally unreasonable. But they were forced to sign the Agreement as they were informed that in case the said Agreement was not signed in its totality, then the allotment would be cancelled and earnest money would be forfeited.

4. It is pleaded that the possession of the Apartment was to be delivered by September, 2015 but despite lapse of the promised date, the possession was not given to the Complainant. It is further pleaded that the Opposite Parties failed to complete the construction; that though the Complainants regularly visited the site, they always found that there was no progress in the construction; no one was present at the site to address their queries; the entire site appeared to be an abandoned piece of land with semi constructed structure; that after receiving substantial amounts from the home buyers, the Opposite Parties stopped construction; that many home buyers obtained home loans from various Banks and despite on-time payment of the entire demand of the Opposite Parties, despite repeated requests and reminders through letters, e- mails, phone calls and personal visits by the Complainants, the Opposite Parties failed to deliver the possession of the apartment to the Complainants; that as per Clause 17(a) the Opposite Parties offered only a meagre amount of ₹5/- per sq. ft. p.m. for delay which amounts to only 1.4% p.a. whereas as per Clause 14(a) the Opposite Parties are charging interest @ 18% p.a. compounded quarterly from the home buyers and that the Complainants have no faith in the project of the Opposite Parties and seek refund of the amounts paid.

5. The First Opposite Party filed their Written Version on 29.01.2018 stating that the Project "RISE" consists of 5 Towers, namely Tower A, B, C, D & E each having 17, 19, 21, 23 & 25 floors respectively which is being developed by the Opposite Parties on the land situated in Sector 37-D, Gurgaon, Haryana having an area of approximately 60.5112 acres the mutation of which was also sanctioned in their favour in accordance with law by the Patwari Villagle Gadauli Kalan, Tehsil District Gurgaon, Haryana. The Opposite Parties also obtained license from DGTCP vide memo No. 33 of 2008 dated 19.02.2008 which was later on renewed by way of a letter bearing reference No. LC-1608-JE(B)-2010/207 dated 07.01.2011 renewed upto date. It is averred that the Complainant booked an apartment in this residential complex and applied for the provisional allotment on 14.04.2012 by paying an advance amount of ₹2,00,000/- and an Allotment Letter was issued for flat No. 1303 located on the 13^th floor admeasuring 1750 sq. ft. with parking space in block-C for a total consideration of

4

₹82,83,311/-. An Apartment Buyer Agreement was entered into for a total sale consideration of ₹82,83,311/-. The Complainants never objected to the terms and conditions of the Apartment Buyer Agreement and, therefore, now cannot raise any objection with respect to the clauses. As per Clause 15(a) of the Agreement, the Apartment was reasonably expected to be delivered by September, 2015 subject to Clause 31 of the Agreement, whereby the date of possession shall get extended automatically if the completion of the Complex including the Apartment is delayed by reason of non-availability of steel and/or cement or other building materials, or water supply or electric power or slow down, strike or, lock-out or civil commotion or by reason or war or enemy action or terrorist action or earthquake or any act of God or due to any act, notice, order, rule or notification of the government and/or any other Public or Competent authority or due to delay in sanction of any revised building/zoning plans or for any other reasons beyond the control of Developers, the Allottee agrees that the Developers shall be entitled to the extension of time for handing over of the possession of the said Apartment/Unit.

6. It is averred that the delay in delivering the possession of the Apartment is only because of reasons beyond their control and, therefore, the above Clause automatically is applicable and the date of possession gets extended automatically. The parties had mutually agreed vide Clause 17(a) that in the eventuality of delay in handing over possession beyond the period stipulated in Clause 15(a) of the Agreement, the allottee will be compensated with ₹5/- per sq. ft. per month of Super Area. It is averred that vide Clause 31 of the Agreement that the parties have further agreed to Force Majeure circumstances which in the instant case prevented the Opposite Parties from meeting the construction schedule and, therefore, no deficiency of service can be attributed to the Opposite Parties. It was also pleaded that the words 'proposed to hand over possession' in Clause 15(a) itself denotes that time was never the essence of the contract.

7. It is stated that the shortage of labour/work force, extreme water shortage, the restraint use of ground water, shortage of supply of construction material leading to increase in the cost of material all are force majeure circumstances.

8. It is stated that the parties agreed and quantified ₹5/- per sq. ft. per month to be the genuine pre-estimate of the damages suffered on account of delay in offering possession of the flat and, therefore, Complainants are not entitled to claim interest @ 18% p.a. It was also stated that Clause 37 of the Agreement stipulates that arbitration shall be the sole and exclusive procedure for resolving the dispute and, therefore, the Complainants ought not to have approached the Consumer Fora.

9. It is also averred that the Complainants are not 'Consumers' as they intend to purchase the Apartments for 'Commercial Purpose'. It is pleaded that there is no deficiency of service

5

on their behalf and they seek dismissal of the Complaint with costs.

10. The Second Opposite Party filed I.A. bearing No. 22547 of 2018 seeking deletion of their names from the array of Memo of Parties on the ground that there is no privity of contract between them and the Complainants. This Application was dismissed as withdrawn vide Order dated 30.04.2019.

11. The Second Opposite Party filed their Written Version on 25.01.2018 stating that they had engaged the First Opposite Party for the construction and development of the Project pursuant to which the First Opposite Party is responsible for undertaking complete construction and implementation of the project "Rise". In consideration of the services of the First Opposite Party, the second Opposite Party had agreed to share the revenues generated out of the Project with the First Opposite Party and accordingly a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) dated 29.11.2011 was executed between the First Opposite Party and the Second Opposite Party which is also referred to in the Purchaser's Agreement dated 22.08.2012. It is stated that no amounts have been misappropriated and that the entire money was utilized for the benefit of the Project. It is averred that the Complainants had agreed to the terms in the Builder Buyers Agreement with respect to Clause 13, Clause 15(a) & (b), Clause 17(a) and Clause 31 which for the sake of brevity are not being repeated as the same have already been stated in the Written Version of the First Opposite Party. It is stated that this Commission does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the matter as the Complainants have clubbed interest @ 18% p.a. which is exorbitant; that the delay in handing over of the flat does not amount to unfair trade practice; that compensation, if any, has to be paid at ₹5/- per sq. ft. per month of the Super Area which has been agreed to by both the parties; that the Complainants have not availed any home loan and have purchased the said Apartments only for the purpose of commercial gain; that the delay in the Project is for the reasons beyond the control of the Opposite Parties and there is no negligence on their behalf.

12. The Complainants have filed Ex. PW1/A (Builder Buyer Agreement), PW1/B (Details of payment), PW1/C (Construction update) and PW1/X (the Complaint) in support of their case.

13. The First Opposite Party also filed Annexure (copy of the order dated 16.07.2012 passed by the Hon'ble High court of Punjab and Haryana) and Annexure R2 (Copy of Memo No. 2524 dated 01.09.2012 from the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon, Haryana) in support of their case. The Second Opposite Party has not filed any documents by way of evidence.

14. Heard the parties at length. Learned Counsel appearing for the Complainants submitted that till date the construction is incomplete despite the fact that the Complainants have paid substantial amounts of money. He submitted that the Complainants have taken Bank Loans with floating rate of interest and since the construction is still incomplete, the Complainants sought for refund of the amounts paid with the same rate of interest which is being charged by the Opposite Parties for any delay in the payments to be made by the Complainants.

15. Learned counsel appearing for the first Opposite Party vehemently argued that as per Clause 15 (a) the time for handing over of possession was September, 2015 and the Developer

6

is entitled to grace period of 120 days for applying and obtaining the Occupancy Certificate and that this period needs to be excluded; that Clause 15 (b) stipulates that subject to Clause 31, the date of possession shall get extended automatically; that as per Clause 15 (b) (1) if the Completion of the project is delayed by reason of non-availability of steel and or cement and other building material or water or power or slow down or any terrorist action or earthquake or any order or rule or notification of the Government under any public or competent authority or due to delay in obtaining sanctions or for any reason beyond the control of the Developer, the flat purchaser agrees that the Developer is entitled to extension of time; that Clause 31 specifically mentions Force Majeure conditions which are beyond the control of the Developer and therefore the Developer is entitled to extension of time since it was specifically pleaded in the Written Version that there was extreme water shortage and availability of water and therefore it squarely falls under Clause 15 (b)(i) and Clause 31; that the Hon'ble Supreme court in Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh (2004) 5 SCC 65, has categorically held that interest and possession should depend on the facts of each case. He drew our attention to paragraphs 8, 14 and 25 of the aforenoted judgement, wherein it is observed as follows:

"8. However, the power to and duty to award compensation does not mean that irrespective of facts of the case compensation can be awarded in all matters at a uniform rate of 18% per annum. As seen above what is being awarded is compensation i.e. a recompense for the loss or injury. It therefore necessarily has to be based on a finding of loss or injury and has to correlate with the amount of loss or injury. Thus the Forum or the Commission must determine that there has been deficiency in service and/or misfeasance in public office which has resulted in loss or injury. No hard and fast rule can be laid down, however a few examples would be where an allotment is made, price is received/paid but possession is not given within the period set out in the brochure. The Commission/Forum would then need to determine the loss. Loss could be determined on basis of loss of rent which could have been earned if possession was given and the premises let out or if the consumer has had to stay in rented premises then on basis of rent actually paid by him. Along with recompensing the loss the Commission/Forum may also compensate for harassment/injury both mental and physical. Similarly, compensation can be given if after allotment is made there has been cancellation of scheme without any justifiable cause.

14. ………. "8. The words 'interest' and 'compensation' are sometimes used interchangeably and on other occasions they have distinct connotation. 'Interest' in general terms is the return or compensation for the use or retention by one person of a sum of money belonging to or owed to another. In its narrow sense, 'interest' is understood to mean the amount which one has contracted to pay for use of borrowed money. ... In whatever category 'interest' in a particular case may be put, it is a consideration paid either for the use of money or for forbearance in demanding it, after it has fallen due, and thus, it is a charge for the use or forbearance of money. In this sense, it is a compensation allowed by law or fixed by parties, or permitted by custom or usage, for use of money, belonging to another, or for the delay in paying money after it has become payable." In this case it is also observed that the Reserve Bank of India has supervisory role over banking. It is observed that Reserve Bank of India has been issuing

7

directions/circulars dealing with rates of interest. It is held that the Reserve Bank of India circulars can be treated as standards regarding rates of interest.

25. Another point also requires consideration at this stage. In the lead Judgment the National Commission has held that no interest is payable for the period 24/4/1991 to 16/12/1993 as during that period there was a stay order passed by the Allahabad High Court in operation. Some of the allottees have filed Appeals challenging that portion of the Order. It is contended, on their behalf that there was no stay order in respect of the plots allotted to them. It was contended that the authority cannot justify non-delivery to them. As against this it is pointed out that this Court has already in the case of G.D.A. vs. Sanchar Vihar Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. reported in (1996) 9 SCC 314 upheld the view of the National Commission in refusing interest or damages for the period during which the stay operated. It is also pointed out that the Commission had deputed the Vice-Chairman to enquire and report whether the authority was prevented from delivering possession to all due to the stay order. It is pointed out that the Vice-Chairman had submitted a Report pointing out that even though the stay Order was not in respect of all plots, yet the authority could not deliver possession of any plot as well the pipelines and other infrastructural work had to be taken through the plots in respect of which the stay Order operated. As per the Report of the Vice Chairman the authority was prevented, by the stay Order, from delivering possession to anybody. The National Commission has accepted this Report. We see no reason to take a different view, particularly when another Bench has already refused to interfere on this aspect."

16. Learned counsel appearing for the first Opposite Party also relied on the judgement of this Commission in CC/315/2014 between Sh. Pradeep Narula & Anr. Vs. M/s Granite Gate Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., in which it is observed that wherever the builder commits a particular date or time frame for completion of the construction and offering possession to the buyers, he must necessarily honour the commitment made by him, though a minor delay may not constitute deficiency in the service rendered by him to the buyer. Of course, if the builder is able to show that the delay in completion of construction and offering possession to the buyer is attributable wholly to the circumstances beyond his control, that may not be a case of deficiency in the services rendered to the consumer. He vehemently contended that interest @ 18% p.a. as prayed for by the Complainant cannot be awarded as difference in the market price is to be taken into consideration and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgement dated 02.04.2019 Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raghavan (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018), has confirmed the judgement of this Commission awarding simple interest @ 10.7%.

17. Learned Counsel appearing for the Second Opposite Party vehemently contended that the delay in handing over the possession of the Apartment was on account of the circumstances beyond the control of the Opposite Parties; no amounts have been misappropriated and all the monies were utilized for the benefit of the Project; the Complainants had agreed to the terms in the Builder Buyers Agreement with respect to the Clause 13, Clause 15(a) & (b), Clause 17(a) and Clause 31; this Commission does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the matter as the Complainants have clubbed interest @ 18% p.a. which is exorbitant; that the delay in handing over of the flat does not amount to unfair trade practice; that compensation, if any, has to be paid at

8

₹5/- per sq. ft. per month of the Super Area which has been agreed to by both the parties; that Complainants have not availed any home loan and have purchased the said Apartments only for the purpose of commercial gain; that the delay in the Project is for the reasons beyond the control of the Opposite Parties; the date of possession is not a sacrosanct date and there is no negligence on their behalf.

18. The facts not in dispute are that the Complainants entered into a Builder Buyers Agreement on 22.08.2012; that the total sale consideration was ₹82,83,311/-; that an amount of 68,60,316/- was already paid for flat No. 1303 admeasuring 1765 sq. ft. and as per the Clause 15(a) of the Builder Buyers Agreement the time for handing over the possession of the apartment was September, 2015.

19. The contention of the Learned Counsel that the said Apartments were purchased for commercial purpose is not supported by any documentary evidence as the onus shifts to the Opposite Parties to establish that the Complainants have purchased the same to indulge in 'purchase and sale of flats' as was held by this Commission in Kavit Ahuja vs. Shipra Estates I (2016) CPJ 31. The Opposite Parties failed to discharge their onus and we hence hold that the Complainants are 'Consumers' as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act.

20. It is the case of the Opposite Parties that Clause 15(a) is subject to Clause 31. It is specifically pleaded in the Written Version that the time period of handing over the delivery was extended in terms of Clause 31 of the Builder Buyers Agreement. For better understanding of the case, the said Clauses are being reproduced as hereunder:-

"15. POSSESSION

(a) Time of handing over the Possession Subject to terms of this Clause and subject to the Allottee having complied with all the terms and condition of this Agreement and the Application, and not default under any of the provisions of this Agreement and compliance with all provisions, formalities, documentation etc., as prescribed by the Developers. Developers propose to hand over the possession of the Apartment by 31-Aug-2014. The Allottee agrees and understands that the Developers entitled to a grace period of hundred and twenty(120) days, for applying and obtaining the occupation certificate in respect of the Group Housing Complex.

(b) Subject to Clause 31, in the following circumstances, the date of possession shall get extended automatically:

(i) If the completion of the Complex including the Apartment is delayed by reason of non- availability of steel and/or cement or other building materials, or water supply or electric power or slow down, strike or lock-out or civil commotion or by reason of war or enemy action or terrorist action or earthquake or any act of God or due to any act, notice, order, rule or notification of the government and/or any other Public or Competent authority or due to delay in sanction of any revised building/zoning plans or for any other reasons beyond the control of

9

Developers, the Allottee agrees that the Developers shall be entitled to the extension of time for handing over of the possession of the said Apartment/Unit.

31. FORCE MAJEURE

The Developers shall not be held responsible or liable for not performing any obligation or undertaking provided for in this Agreement if such performance prevented, delayed or hindered by act of god, fire, flood, explosion, war, riot, terrorist act, sabotage, inability to procure or general shortage of energy, labour equipment facilities, materials or supplies, failure of transportation, strikes, lack outs, action of labour unions, change in law or any other cause not within reasonable control of the Developers." (Emphasis Supplied).

21. In the instant case the material on record does not establish that the reasons given by the Opposite Parties would fall within the scope and definition of 'Force Majeure '. Additionally, there is no documentary evidence to support the contention of the Opposite Parties that the reasons pleaded by them, can be construed as 'Force Majeure.' In the absence of any material on record to substantiate the plea of the Opposite Parties that the delay was for reasons beyond their control, we hold that the Opposite Parties cannot take shelter under the Force Majeure Clause. For the latches of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant cannot be made to suffer.

22. As regarding the submission of the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties that these Complaints are barred by pecuniary jurisdiction and that the interpretation given in

Consumer Complaint No. 97/2016 - Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. was referred to a larger Bench and therefore these matters should also be tagged therein is completely untenable as interpretation given to Section 17 regarding pecuniary jurisdiction as on today still holds and taking into consideration the value of the goods and services and the compensation claimed in each case exceeds one crore and therefore this Commission has the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this Complaint. The issues with respect to the interest referred to the Larger Bench do not specifically apply to the adjudication of the pecuniary jurisdiction of these matters as the value of goods and services and the compensation prayed for exceeds ₹1,00,00,000/-

23. We find it a fit case to place reliance on the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Devasis Rudra Civil Appeal No. 3182/2019 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down as follows:-

"A buyer can be expected to wait for possession for a reasonable period. A period of seven years is beyond what is reasonable. Hence, it would have been manifestly unfair to non-suit the buyer merely on the basis of the first prayer in the reliefs sought before the SCDRC. There was in any event a prayer for refund."

25. We also place reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Fortune Infrastructure & Anr. Vs. Trevor D' Lima & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3533-3534 of 2017

wherein it was held that a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of the flat allotted to him and is entitled to seek refund of the amount paid by him along with compensation.

10

26. The terms of Builder Buyers Agreement dated 16.12.2013 are totally one-sided and unfair. On one hand the Developer is charging interest @ 1.5% per month compounded quarterly which is quantified @ 18% p.a. compounded quarterly for delayed payment and on the other hand, the Developer, as per the Agreement is liable to pay to the Complainant, for delayed delivery, only ₹5/- per sq. ft. per month which is quantified @ 1.4% p.a. This amounts to clear unfair trade practice as defined under Section 2(r) of the Act.

27. Learned Counsel for the Complainants submitted that interest @ 18% p.a. should be awarded as the Developer charges interest @ 18% p.a. compounded quarterly on delayed payment. We find force in the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties that if refund is being allowed then interest has to be awarded keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh (supra). In this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that power to and duty to award compensation does not mean that irrespective of the facts of the case compensation can be awarded in all matters at the uniform rate of 18% p.a. Though we agree with the submission of the Learned Counsel for the First Opposite Party that there can be no hard and fast rule while awarding compensation, we should also keep in view the principles of restitutio in integrum which provides that a person entitled to damages should, as nearly as possible, get that sum of money which would put him in the same position as he would have been if he had not sustained the wrong.

28. Taking into consideration the real estate market situation, the lowered Bank rate we are of the view that awarding interest @ 18% p.a. would not balance equities at this juncture. We place reliance on the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raghavan Civil Appeal No. 12238 of 2018:-

8. We also reject the submission made by the Appellant - Builder that the National Commission was not justified in awarding Interest @10.7% S.I. p.a. for the period commencing from the date of payment of each installment, till the date on which the amount was paid, excluding only the period during which the stay of cancellation of the allotment was in operation.

In Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank ., a Coordinate Bench of this Court held that when possession of the allotted plot/flat/house is not delivered within the specified time, the allottee is entitled to a refund of the amount paid, with reasonable Interest thereon from the date of payment till the date of refund.

8.1.In the present case, the National Commission has passed an equitable Order. The Commission has not awarded any Interest for the period during which the Order of stay of cancellation of the allotment was in operation on the request of the Respondent - Flat Purchaser.

The National Commission has rightly awarded Interest @10.7% S.I. p.a. by applying Rule 15 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation And Development) Rules, 2017 from the date of each installment till 05.02.2017 i.e. till the date after which the Order of stay of cancellation of the allotment was passed; and thereafter, from the date of the Commission's final Order till the date on which

11

the amount is refunded with Interest." (Emphasis supplied).

29. We are of the view that Rule 15 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 are applicable to this case and we find it a fit case to award refund of the Principal Amount with interest @ 10.7% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realization. In the instant case, there was no stay of cancellation of allotment sought for by the Complainants. This simple interest @ 10.7% p.a. is being awarded by way of damages and compensation for the mental agony suffered by the Complainants on account of delay in the delivery of possession and also for having lost an opportunity of not being able to own a home within the time frame expected by them. We also find force in the contention of the Learned Counsel appearing for the Complainants that some of them have taken bank loans with floating rate of interest to pay towards the sale consideration of the subject flats. It is seen that the Apartment Buyer Agreement has been signed by both the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 and we hold that the liability is joint and several.

30. In view of the afore-said discussion, this Complaint is allowed directing the Opposite Parties jointly and severally to refund the principal amounts with simple interest @ 10.7% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realisation together with costs of ₹25,000/-

. Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the amount shall attract interest @ 12% p.a. for the same period.

Consumer Complaint No. 3132 of 2017

Mr. Saurabh Kasturia and Ms. Veena Kasturia booked a Flat No. 1903, Floor 19, Tower D of 1765 sq. ft. in the Project 'RISE' situated in RP City, Sector 37D, Gurgaon, Haryana and entered into Buyer's Agreement dated 16.12.2013, paying a total amount of ₹62,31,265/- against the total consideration of ₹82,83,311/- and the promised date for delivery of possession was September, 2015. For all the aforenoted reasons in Consumer Complaint No. 3131 of 2017, this Complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Parties jointly and severally are directed to refund the amounts paid along with simple interest @ 10.7% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realisation together with costs of ₹25,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the amount shall attract interest @ 12% p.a. for the same period.

Consumer Complaint No. 3264 of 2017

Mr. Raveesh Goel and Ms. Dolly Jain booked a Flat No. 1804, Floor 18, Tower D of 1725 sq. ft. in the Project 'SKYZ' situated in RP City, Sector 37D, Gurgaon, Haryana and entered into Buyer's Agreement dated 06.12.2011, paying a total amount of ₹68,28,453/- against the total consideration of ₹78,10,763/- and the promised date for delivery of

12

possession was 31.08.2014. For all the aforenoted reasons in Consumer Complaint No. 3131 of 2017, this Complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Parties are directed jointly and severally to refund the amounts paid along with simple interest @ 10.7% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realisation together with costs of ₹25,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the amount shall attract interest @ 12% p.a. for the same period.

Consumer Complaint No. 3265 of 2017

Mr. Manish Mittal and Sh. S.C. Mittal booked a Flat No. 1002, Floor 10, Tower B of 1750 sq. ft. in the Project 'SKYZ' situated in RP City, Sector 37D, Gurgaon, Haryana and entered into Buyer's Agreement dated 09.01.2012, paying a total amount of ₹60,42,454/- against the total consideration of ₹69,18,700/- and the promised date for delivery of possession was 31.08.2014. For all the aforenoted reasons in Consumer Complaint No. 3131 of 2017, this Complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Parties are directed jointly and severally to refund the amounts paid along with simple interest @ 10.7% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realisation together with costs of ₹25,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the amount shall attract interest @ 12% p.a. for the same period.

Consumer Complaint No. 1122 of 2018

Mr. Narinder Kumar Bairwal and Ms. Simple Khanna booked a Flat No. 1602, Floor 16, Tower B of 1750 sq. ft. in the Project 'SKYZ' situated in RP City, Sector 37D, Gurgaon, Haryana and entered into Buyer's Agreement dated 01.12.2011 paying a total amount of ₹58,66,222/- against the total consideration of ₹69,18,700/- and the promised date for delivery of possession was 31.08.2014. For all the aforenoted reasons in Consumer Complaint No. 3131 of 2017, this Complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Parties are directed jointly and severally to refund the amounts paid along with simple interest @ 10.7% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realisation together with costs of ₹25,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the amount shall attract interest @ 12% p.a. for the same period.

Consumer Complaint No. 1199 of 2018

Mr. Sarabjit Singh Monga and Mr. Harvinder Monga booked a Flat No. 1802, Floor 18, Tower F of 1750 sq. ft. in the Project 'SKYZ' situated in RP City, Sector 37D, Gurgaon, Haryana and entered into Buyer's Agreement dated 11.11.2011 paying a total amount of ₹75,21,817/- against the total consideration of ₹82,64,997/- and the promised date for delivery of possession was 31.08.2014. For all the aforenoted reasons in

13

Consumer Complaint No. 3131 of 2017, this Complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Parties are directed jointly and severally to refund the amounts paid along with simple interest @ 10.7% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realisation together with costs of ₹25,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the amount shall attract interest @ 12% p.a. for the same period.

Consumer Complaint No. 1449 of 2018

Mr. Bivash Banerjee and Mrs. Indrani Banerjee booked a Flat No. 1603, Floor 16, Tower A of 1750 sq. ft. in the Project 'SKYZ' situated in RP City, Sector 37D, Gurgaon, Haryana and entered into Buyer's Agreement dated 08.10.2011 paying a total amount of ₹75,21,817/- against the total consideration of ₹70,31,639/- and the promised date for delivery of possession was 31.08.2014. For all the aforenoted reasons in Consumer Complaint No. 3131 of 2017, this Complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Parties are directed jointly and severally to refund the amounts paid along with simple interest @ 10.7% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realisation together with costs of ₹25,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the amount shall attract interest @ 12% p.a. for the same period.

Consumer Complaint No. 1450 of 2018

Mr. Mukesh Kumar Gupta and Mrs. Karuna Gupta booked a Flat No. 801, Floor 8, Tower I of 2025 sq. ft. in the Project 'SKYZ' situated in RP City, Sector 37D, Gurgaon, Haryana and entered into Buyer's Agreement dated 08.10.2011 paying a total amount of ₹80,92,595/- against the total consideration of ₹88,92,282/- and the promised date for delivery of possession was 31.08.2014. For all the aforenoted reasons in Consumer Complaint No. 3131 of 2017, this Complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Parties are directed jointly and severally to refund the amounts paid along with simple interest @ 10.7% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realisation together with costs of ₹25,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the amount shall attract interest @ 12% p.a. for the same period.

Consumer Complaint No. 1451 of 2018

Mrs. Aradhana Gaur and Mr. Vinit Mishra booked a Flat No. 1104, Floor 11, Tower D of 1725 sq. ft. in the Project 'SKYZ' situated in RP City, Sector 37D, Gurgaon, Haryana and entered into Buyer's Agreement dated 06.09.2011 paying a total amount of ₹59,88,964/- against the total consideration of ₹68,37,583/- and the promised date for delivery of possession was 31.08.2014. For all the aforenoted reasons in Consumer Complaint No. 3131 of 2017, this Complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite

14

Parties are directed to jointly and severally refund the amounts paid along with simple interest @ 10.7% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realisation together with costs of ₹25,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the amount shall attract interest @ 12% p.a. for the same period.

Consumer Complaint No. 1461 of 2018

Mr. Brij Krishen Dhar and Mrs. Urvashi Dhar booked a Flat No. 204, Floor 2, Tower H of 2025 sq. ft. in the Project 'SKYZ' situated in RP City, Sector 37D, Gurgaon, Haryana and entered into Buyer's Agreement dated 05.11.2011 paying a total amount of ₹71,92,981/- against the total consideration of ₹81,80,925/- and the promised date for delivery of possession was 31.08.2014. For all the aforenoted reasons in Consumer Complaint No. 3131 of 2017, this Complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Parties are directed jointly and severally to refund the amounts paid along with simple interest @ 10.7% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realisation together with costs of ₹25,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the amount shall attract interest @ 12% p.a. for the same period.

Consumer Complaint No. 1462 of 2018

Mr. Manish Jain, Mr. Suresh Kumar Jain and Mrs. Santosh Jain booked a Flat No. 303, Floor 3, Tower C of 1750 sq. ft. in the Project 'SKYZ' situated in RP City, Sector 37D, Gurgaon, Haryana and entered into Buyer's Agreement dated 26.11.2011 paying a total amount of ₹62,24,701/- against the total consideration of ₹71,11,725/- and the promised date for delivery of possession was 31.08.2014. For all the aforenoted reasons in Consumer Complaint No. 3131 of 2017, this Complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Parties are directed jointly and severally to refund the amounts paid along with simple interest @ 10.7% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realisation together with costs of ₹25,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the amount shall attract interest @ 12% p.a. for the same period.

Consumer Complaint No. 1463 of 2018

Mr. Ashish Mathur booked a Flat No. 1203, Floor 12, Tower B of 1750 sq. ft. in the Project 'SKYZ' situated in RP City, Sector 37D, Gurgaon, Haryana and entered into Buyer's Agreement dated 08.11.2011 paying a total amount of ₹60,42,457/- against the total consideration of ₹69,18,700/- and the promised date for delivery of possession was 31.08.2014. For all the aforenoted reasons in Consumer Complaint No. 3131 of 2017, this Complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Parties are directed jointly and severally to refund the amounts paid along with simple interest @

15

10.7% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realisation together with costs of ₹25,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the amount shall attract interest @ 12% p.a. for the same period.

Consumer Complaint No. 1464 of 2018

Mr. Adnan Ahsan booked a Flat No. 1802, Floor 18, Tower C of 1750 sq. ft. in the Project 'SKYZ' situated in RP City, Sector 37D, Gurgaon, Haryana and entered into Buyer's Agreement dated 01.12.2011 paying a total amount of ₹70,34,887/- against the total consideration of ₹77,26,478/- and the promised date for delivery of possession was 31.08.2014. For all the aforenoted reasons in Consumer Complaint No. 3131 of 2017, this Complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Parties are directed jointly and severally to refund the amounts paid along with simple interest @ 10.7% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realisation together with costs of ₹25,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the amount shall attract interest @ 12% p.a. for the same period.

Consumer Complaint No. 1480 of 2018

Mr. Avinash Arora & Mr. Satish Chandra Arora booked a Flat No. 404, Floor 4, Tower C of 1725 sq. ft. in the Project 'SKYZ' situated in RP City, Sector 37D, Gurgaon, Haryana and entered into Buyer's Agreement dated 03.12.2012 paying a total amount of ₹60,55,522/- against the total consideration of ₹67,42,875/- and the promised date for delivery of possession was 31.08.2014. For all the aforenoted reasons in Consumer Complaint No. 3131 of 2017, this Complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Parties are directed jointly and severally to refund the amounts paid along with simple interest @ 10.7% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realisation together with costs of ₹25,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the amount shall attract interest @ 12% p.a. for the same period.

Consumer Complaint No. 1481 of 2018

Mr. Amit Kumar Nanchahal and Mrs. Paayal Dharmani booked a Flat No. 1602, Floor 16, Tower A of 1750 sq. ft. in the Project 'SKYZ' situated in RP City, Sector 37D, Gurgaon, Haryana and entered into Buyer's Agreement dated 16.09.2011 paying a total amount of ₹70,31,638/- against the total consideration of ₹77,26478/- and the promised date for delivery of possession was 31.08.2014.

For all the aforenoted reasons in Consumer Complaint No. 3131 of 2017, this Complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Parties are directed to refund the amounts paid along with simple interest @ 10.7% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realisation

16

together with costs of ₹25,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the amount shall attract interest @ 12% p.a. for the same period.

......................J

R.K. AGRAWAL

PRESIDENT

......................

M. SHREESHA

MEMBER

17