PER MR PREM NARAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER The present consumer complaint has been filed by Mr Raj Kumar Goyal against the opposite Parties Jalandhar Improvement Trust and Anr. The brief facts of the case are that draw was conducted by the opposite parties and the2. applicant/ complainant was a successful allottee. The opposite parties sent a letter of allotment dated 23.12.2011 to the complainant regarding allotment of residential plot no.83 D measuring

356 sq yards for a total consideration of Rs.56,90,030/-. The said allotment letter also contained the description of the terms and conditions under which the said plot was allotted. On 20.01.2012, for the purpose of entering into an agreement with the opposite parties, the complainant visited the office of the opposite parties and executed agreement as envisaged in the allotment letter. Opposite parties were under obligation to immediately deliver the possession of the residential plot to the complainant. However, opposite parties did not perform their part of the obligation. Opposite party no.2 also promised to send a copy of the agreement to the complainant within a week. However, the opposite parties have not yet supplied the copy of the said agreement to the complainant. The complainant has also deposited the amount of Rs.11,51,030/- (1/4 of the remaining amount + cess charge + site plan + agreement fee) vide receipt no.50621 dated 20.01.2012. In the month of June 2015, the complainant came to know that the land under which the3. scheme was carved out by the opposite parties was under serious litigation before the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. On coming to know about the said fact, the complainant again requested the opposite parties to give the possession of the plot but the opposite party put the matter on hold on one pretext or another by saying that the matter was pending before the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh therefore, the possession shall be delivered after the decision of the Honble High Court. The opposite parties failed to deliver the possession of the aforesaid residential plot to the complainant despite the fact that the complainant had paid the entire amount of Rs.72,34,700/- to the opposite parties. Due to non-delivery of possession of the allotted plot, the complainant could not take further steps for getting the site plan sanctioned and to start his construction within the stipulated period of three years. Hence, the complainant has filed the present consumer complaint before this Commission.4. The complaint has been resisted by the opposite party by filing written statement. Evidence5. was also filed by both the parties by way of affidavits. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Learned counsel for the complainant has6. stated that as per the agreement the period for giving the possession was for three years and therefore, the possession was to be delivered in the year 2014. However, the possession was not offered till the filing of the complaint. The complainant was kept in the dark and it was not informed by the opposite parties that there was a stay granted by the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh vide order dated 08.03.2011 wherein the parties were directed to maintain status quo regarding possession till further orders, however, this was not to give any . Though there was a status quoright to the writ petitioners to raise any further construction ordered by the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh on 08.03.2011, the opposite parties advertised the scheme which was to commence from 08.08.2011. The opposite parties also accepted the booking amount and issued the allotment letter dated 23.12.2011 which was received by the complainant. All these activities of the opposite parties were in violation of the order dated 08.03.2011 of the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. When the complainant came to know about this fact, the complainant decided to withdraw from the scheme as the complainant did not want to engage himself in the litigation. Accordingly, the complainant made a request to the OPs for refund of the money. However, there was no response from the OPs. The OPs are claiming that the stay order was only in respect of a very small piece of land and not for the whole land. This is not correct as would be clear from the Honble High Courts order dated 08.03.2011. After the complaint was filed on 15.02.2016, the OPs allegedly offered the possession on 23.02.2016. The complainant did not take the possession as the complainant had already filed the complaint for refund of the amount as there was a huge delay in handing over the possession. It was argued by the learned counsel that the OPs have raised the issue of pecuniary7. jurisdiction for the present complaint. It was stated by the learned counsel that the total amount of Rs.72,34,700/- has been paid to the OPs and if the interest @ 18% per annum is added to this figure, it will definitely cross Rs.one crore and therefore, this Commission has the pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the present complaint. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs states that this Commission does not have8. the pecuniary jurisdiction to deal with the present complaint because the total consideration for the property is only Rs.63 lakh and if the amount of interest of Rs.25 lakh is added to this figure it does not cross Rs.one crore. The total amount of Rs.72,34,700/- cannot be considered to decide the pecuniary jurisdiction and this amount includes penalty and interest paid by the complainant as he was irregular in making the payment of instalments and therefore, he had paid interest as per the agreement. The learned counsel has also stated that as per the decision of the Larger Bench of this Commission in Consumer Case no.97 of 2016, Ambrish Kumar Shukla and Ors. Vs , it is the consideration which is to Ferrous Infrstructure Pvt. Ltd., decided on 07.10.2016 (NC) be taken into account for deciding pecuniary jurisdiction. Further, the learned counsel for the OPs has stated that the stay was only for 85 maralas of land and not on the plot of the complainant therefore, the complainant was free to take the possession of the plot when offered. The Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana finally decided the matter on 22.12.2015 and after that a general resolution was passed by the Trust to proceed with the project and to give possession to the allottees. In this regard a public notice was issued that development work will start soon and possession may be taken by the allottees in January 2016. Apart from the public notice, individual letter of offer of possession was also sent to the complainant on 23.02.2016. The complainant, instead of taking the possession of the plot, filed a consumer complaint for refund of the paid amount. When the plot is ready and possession has been offered to the complainant, there is no justification for the complainant to seek refund of the amount paid. The amount has already been invested by the OPs in the development of the plot and the Trust does not have any spare money to refund to the complainant as the Trust is a non-profit organisation. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties9. and examined the material on record. The OPs have raised the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction for dealing with the present complaint. It is seen that Rs.72,34,700/- has been paid to the OPs and the complainant has prayed in the complaint for refund of this amount. It is true that this Commission in has observed Ambrish Kumar Shukla and Ors. Vs Ferrous Infrstructure Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) that consideration amount along with compensation demanded should be the basis for deciding the pecuniary jurisdiction of a consumer forum, however, if the amount is more than the consideration paid and the same is requested for refund in the complaint, this amount needs to be taken into consideration as actual order will be passed for refund of the paid amount only. This Commission in the case of RP No.1794 of 2017, M/s. Maharani of India Vs. Branch Manager, has observed that for deciding the United India Insurance Co. Ltd., decided on 11.01.2018, (NC) pecuniary jurisdiction, the amount paid along with 18% per annum interest should be taken to decide the pecuniary jurisdiction. Thus, if 18% interest per annum is added to the amount of Rs.72,34,700/- (from the respective deposits) the total figure will cross Rs.One crore, therefore, this Commission will have the pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the present complaint. The question whether stay was on the part of the land or on the whole land is immaterial10. because, the public notice wherein it has been stated that the development work will start soon and possession may be taken in January 2016 was issued for all the allottees. The plot of the complainant was also covered under the stay as no offer letter for possession was issued to the complainant before the date of order of the Honble High Court. Even the individual letter of offer of possession was only issued on 23.02.2016. The public notice clearly shows that before the order of the Honble High Court, there was no development work going on in pursuance of the order dated 08.03.2011 passed by the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. Therefore, there is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant wanted refund as he did not want to engage in any form of litigation as the land was in dispute. Moreover it is seen that the letter dated 23.02.2016 which is being called as offer letter for11. possession by the OPs is really not an offer letter of possession as it is only a letter of demand and to get the allotted plot demarcated as would be clear from the contents of this letter which reads as under:

You were allotted the plot in the above noted Surya Enclave Extension. As you are that some of the land owners had filed a case in the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in which they had obtained the stay on some portion of the acquired land because of which great difficulties were being faced to undertake the development works simultaneously. After the decision in favour of the Trust on 22.12.2015, the development works such as Roads, Water Supply and Sewerage are being carried out at a great speed. You are requested to come to the Trust Office and deposit the balance amount/ after the execution of the agreement, obtain the demarcation of your plot. It is also true that once there was a status quo order dated 08.03.2011 from the Honble High12. Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh, the scheme floated should have been stayed by the OPs, however, they accepted the booking amounts and also allotted plot numbers to different allottees. In fact, the further amounts were also received. In my view, these activities of the OPs amount to unfair trade practice and thus, deficiency13. in service on the part of the OPs is evident. Otherwise also, as possession was to be delivered in the year 2014 as per the scheme, however, the same was allegedly offered in February 2016. The Honble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.12238 of 2018 titled as Pioneer Urban Land & has observed that if the possession is highly Infrastructure Ltd. versus Govindan Raghavan

delayed, the complainant cannot be compelled to accept the property in question and the complainant has every right to seek refund. The order reads as follows: 3.8. The National Commission vide Final Judgment and Order dated 23.10.2018 allowed the Consumer Complaint filed by the Respondent - Flat Purchaser, and held that since the last date stipulated for construction had expired about 3 years before the Occupancy Certificate was obtained, the Respondent - Flat Purchaser could not be compelled to take possession at such a belated stage. The grounds urged by the Appellant - Builder for delay in handing over possession were not justified, so as to deny awarding compensation to the Respondent - Flat Purchaser. The clauses in the Agreement were held to be wholly one - sided, unfair, and not binding on the Respondent - Flat Purchaser. 6 The Appellant - Builder was directed to refund Rs. 4,48,43,026/- i.e. the amount deposited by the Respondent - Flat Purchaser, along with Interest @10.7% S.I. p.a. towards compensation.

9. We see no illegality in the Impugned Order dated 23.10.2018 passed by the National Commission. The Appellant - Builder failed to fulfill his contractual obligation of obtaining the Occupancy Certificate and offering possession of the flat to the Respondent - Purchaser within the time stipulated in the Agreement, or within a reasonable time thereafter. The Respondent - Flat Purchaser could not be compelled to take possession of the flat, even though it was offered almost 2 years after the grace period under the Agreement expired. During this period, the Respondent - Flat Purchaser had to service a loan that he had obtained for purchasing the flat, by paying Interest @10% to the Bank. In the meanwhile, the Respondent - Flat Purchaser also located an alternate property in Gurugram. In these circumstances, the Respondent - Flat Purchaser was entitled to be granted the relief prayed for i.e. refund of the entire amount deposited by him with Interest.

10. The Civil Appeals are accordingly dismissed, and the Final Judgment and Order dated 23.10.2018 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is affirmed. From the above examination, it is clear that there is a delay in offering the possession and14. the land was also in dispute, therefore, the complainant is fully authorised to seek refund of his paid amount from the OPs. Now coming to the question of awarding of interest, it is seen that the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd., vs Devasis has Rudra Civil Appeal no.3182 of 2019 2019 SCC online SC 438 decided on 25.03.2019, reduced the rate of interest from 12% per annum granted by this Commission on the amount of refund to 9% per annum. Clearly, the amount paid by the complainant had been invested in the project and there was no whisper of refund even after paying the whole amount to the OPs and request for refund was moved for the first time in the year 2015. Moreover, the complaint has been filed after the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh decided the matter on 22.12.2015. Public notice was issued by the OPs, wherein it was informed that the possession would be ready by January 2016, therefore, the complainant must have been aware before filing of the complaint that the stay order has been vacated and the trust is ready to give possession of the plot, still the complainant sought refund of the amount paid to the OPs. It is true that the complainant is entitled to get refund as there has been delay of roughly two years in handing over the possession. However, he is entitled to interest only from next month from the date of last payment. Last payment was made on 19.12.2014, therefore, the complainant is entitled to get interest from 01.01.2015 in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Based on the above discussion, the complaint is allowed and the OPs are directed to refund15. the amount of Rs.72,34,700/- along with 9% per annum interest from 01.01.2015 till the actual payment. ...................... PREM NARAIN PRESIDING MEMBER