2nd ADDITIONAL BENCH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH. Consumer Complaint No.776 of 2019 Date of Institution: 21.10.2019 Date of reserve : 30.01.2020 Date of Decision : 05.03.2020 Madhu Bala widow of Sh. Manohar Lal, aged 50 years, resident of House No.1175, 1st floor, Sector-42-B, Chandigarh. ..Complainant Versus

1. M/s Royal Empire (Project Royal Apartment), through its Director/Partner/Proprietors, # Peer Muchhalla (Adjoining Sector-20, Panchkula), Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.

2. Jiwan Garg, Director/Partner/Proprietors in M/s Royal Empire (Project Royal Apartment), # Peer Muchhalla (Adjoining Sector-20, Panchkula), Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.

3. Prince Garg, Director/Partner/Proprietors in M/s Royal Empire (Project Royal Apartment), # Peer Muchhalla (Adjoining Sector-20, Panchkula), Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab. Respondent no.1 to 3 royaleempirey@yahoo.in

4. HDFC Limited, through its Regional Branch Manager, #SCO- 153-155, Sector-8-C, Chandigarh-160018.

5. HDFC Limited, through its Head Official/concerned officer, # Ramon House, H T Parekh Marg, 169, Backbay Reclamation, Churgegate, Mumbai, India-400020. Respondent No.4 and 5 customercare.chand@hdfc.com .....Opposite Parties Complaint U/s 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Quorum:- Honble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President Mr. Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member. Ms. Kiran Sibal, Member. Present:- For the complainant: Sh. Bhavnik Mehta, Advocate with Ms. Rohini Bedi, Advocate For OP no.2 : Ex-parte For OPs no.1&3 : Sh. Prince Garg, in person (in custody) For OPs no.4&5 : Ms. Rupali Shekhar Verma, Advocate Consumer Complaint No.776 of 2019 2 RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL, MEMBER:- The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties (in short, OPs) seeking following directions to OPs:

i) OPs no.1 & 3 be directed to hand over the physical possession of flat no.701 in the project Royal Apartment; Or in alternate ii) OPs no.1 & 3 be directed to refund Rs.6,50,000/- with 18% interest iii) OPs no.1 & 3 be directed to refund the entire loan amount of Rs.13,20,000/- to OP no.4 alongwith interest @18% from the date of disbursal till date.; iv) OPs no.1 & 3 be directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for mental and physical harassment and agony;

v) OPs no.4-5 be directed to return money received from complainant by way of pre-EMIs amounting to Rs.13,11,697/- alongwith interest @18% from date of first pre-EMI i.e. from 05.09.2011 (interest be calculated on prorate basis) till date, since they are actively indulged in unfair trade practices and are also deficient in services for illegally charging EMIs from complainant, instead of claiming refund from OPs no.1 to 3; vi) OPs no.4 and 5 be restrained from charging any EMI from complainant towards the loan since they have already claimed their own right of possession over the Consumer Complaint No.776 of 2019 3 flat without informing her, and without the complaints default or consent; vii) To direct OPs no.4 and 5 to pay Rs.2,00,000/- on account of mental harassment caused to the complainant and her family; and viii) to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as litigation charges. Facts of the complaint

2. Brief facts, as set out in the complaint, are that complainant and her late husband Manohar Lal had purchased a flat no.701 for Rs.32,00,000/- from OPs no.1-3 builders in their project Royal Apartment situated at Peer Muchhalla, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, vide application dated 05.04.2011. The said flat was purchased by complainant and her husband for personal use and for her family. At the time of applying for flat, OPs no.1 and 2 had shown all the maps and approvals to them and assured the timely possession of the flat. Vide letter dated 07.04.2011, OPs no.1 and 2 allotted flat no.701 to them and agreement to sell was executed between the parties on 07.04.2011, vide C-4. A sum of Rs.6,00,000/- was paid in advance against the receipt no.160 dated 08.04.2011, vide C-5. As per para of the said agreement, the possession was promised to be handed over within 18-21 months from the date of agreement and in the event of delay in handing over the possession of the flat, the first party shall be liable to pay Rs.3.50 per square fee X 1800 square feet-6300/- per month, as compensation for delay to the second party. The complainant and her husband took loan of Consumer Complaint No.776 of 2019 4 Rs.18,00,000/- on 06.07.2011 from OP no.4 with an interest @10.25% per annum for 15 years with equated monthly installment of Rs.19,620/- for making the balance payment. The loan agreement dated 12.09.2011 is C-9. A sum of Rs.11,030/- was paid to OP no.4 as processing fee by husband of the complainant. A tripartite agreement dated 12.07.2011 (C-8) was also executed between late Manohar Lal & the complainant (borrowers), the builder (OPs no.1-

3), and the financer (OPs no.4 and 5). As per clause 10 of the Tripartite Agreement that in the event of cancellation of residential apartment for any reason, whatsoever, the entire amount received by the builder (OPs no.1-3) including the borrowers own contribution would be refunded by the builder to OP no.4. A total amount of Rs.13,20,000/- out of sanctioned loan amount of Rs.18,00,000/- was disbursed by OP no.4 from the loan account of OP no.1, vide C-10 to C12, which are as under:- Sr.No. Amount (Rs.) Date Cheque/pay order no. Receipt no. & date

1. 8,00,000/- 09.09.2011 866530 379 (12.09.2011)

3. 2,60,000/- 09.11.2011 870498 422 (09.11.2011) The complainant paid another amount of Rs.50,000/-, vide C-13. The complainant paid total amount ofRs.19,70,000/- (including loan amount of Rs.13,20,000/-) to OPs no.1-3. Vide C-14, letter dated 12.06.2013, OPs no.4 and 5 unilaterally restructured the complainants loan without informing her consent, without assigning Consumer Complaint No.776 of 2019 5 any reason. The complainants late husband Manohar Lal had started paying the pre-EMIs and EMIs towards the repayment of the loan amount from the scheduled date 15.09.2011 and repayment of loan amount from 15.09.2011 to 15.02.2019 is C-15. OPs no.1-3 had approvals only till 6th floor and that 7th floor on which complainant and her late husband had booked flat, was not sanctioned at all. A detailed map, showing approval only till 6th floor, is C-17 and this map is different from the map, which has been shown to complainant and her late husband regarding approval upto 7th floor, vide C-2 at the time of purchasing the flat. After getting this information, Manohar Lal husband of complainant got into a state of severe depression, who was still paying the EMIs towards the loan as well as rent for his government accommodation, found himself in a completely unmanageable situation and committed suicide on 14.02.2019. The police report was registered in this regard, vide C-

18 and the death certificate of Manohar Lal is C-19. Thereafter, complainant came to know that OP no.4 got a public notice published in Amar Ujala newspaper dated 01.08.2012 (C-20) to the effect that HDFC Ltd. (OP no.4) has the exclusive right and possession on the flats in the project Royal Apartments. OP no.4 could have claimed such conclusive right, only if there was default on behalf of the borrower or cancellation of the flats by OPs no.1 and

3 and not otherwise. Such an exclusive/conclusive claim without any default by the borrower or without informing the borrower would amount to serious breach of contract between OP no.4 and the Consumer Complaint No.776 of 2019 6 complainant as well as tripartite agreement. Before issuing above notice, OP no.4 did not inform the complainant and her late husband and accepted all the EMIs, OP no.4 has committed serious deficiency in services. Vide notifications dated 20.05.2012 and 01.04.2015, Indian Overseas Bank informed the public about the attachment of all the properties relating to OPs no.1-3 and the bank had decided to sell of the land mentioned in the notification, including land pertaining to project in question. Hence for all the practical reasons and purposes, land had been taken over by the Indian Overseas Bank and the possession of the flat had been taken over by OP no.4, leaving nothing for the buyer i.e. the complainant. OPs no.1-3 usurped the entire money paid by complainant directly and through the bank and they neither give possession of the flat in question till date nor they refunded the amount to complainant. She served legal notice dated 08.08.2019 (C-23 to 25) upon OPs for their deficiency in service and also moved a complainant with SSP, Mohali against OPs no.1-3, vide C-26. The complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, hence the present complaint. Defence of opposite parties:

3. Notices of this complaint were sent to OPs no.1-3, who refused to accept the same, hence they were proceeded against ex- parte, vide order dated 08.01.2020. OPs no.4 and 5 filed their separate written reply. Sh. Prince Garg (in custody), on behalf of OPs no.1 and 2 joined the proceedings on 22.01.2020. Consumer Complaint No.776 of 2019 7

4. OPs no.4 and 5 in its reply, they averred that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant against OPs no.4 and

5 and as such, the instant complaint is not maintainable. The parties to the lis, are bound by terms and conditions of the Tripartite Agreement and perusal thereof, would show that it is the borrowers, who had made a representation that builder is of their choice and they are satisfied with its ability to complete the project. Likewise, the builder had given certain assurances and representations with regard to status of the project and based on their representations and assurances, HDFC Limited had granted loan in favor of the borrowers-complainants. All the financial institutions for their own use, carry out technical and legal evaluation of the project and such evaluations is not meant for the borrowers or to confer any status to the projects. Apart from the principal component of Rs.13,20,000/-, the interest component alongwith other charges are also to be taken into consideration while making an assessment of the contribution made by HDFC Limited. Indian Overseas Bank has issued document at Annexure C-14 to M/s Royal Empire and the baseless allegations has been made against OPs no.4 and 5. The account though largely remained regular, but on certain occasions, installments were not paid on time. The complainant has made an attempt to link the incidents of May 2019 to Public Notices dated 01.08.2012 and these public notices are being cited out of context. These notices had not been issued to take over the possession of the units under SARFAESI Act, 2002 or any such other law relating to recovery. The Consumer Complaint No.776 of 2019 8 tenor of the notices was to ensure that no third party right should be created on the properties financed by HDFC Limited and rather these notices were issued to the safeguard the interest of the borrowers of HDFC Limited as well. In view of above, allegations as regard unfair trade practice etc. are completely misconceived. OPs no.4 and 5 are entitled to recover their dues in accordance with law. In fact, the stated case of the complainant is that the flat has not been constructed, but in the same breath, a claim has been made that allegedly HDFC Limited had taken possession of the flat in 2012, which is contradictory. At the time of financing the unit in question, HDFC Limited had taken a no objection from Indian Overseas Bank and HDFC Limited has not taken possession of the unit in question. It is clarified that Indian Overseas Bank has financed the project, which is different from finance of flat in question. Legal notice dated 08.08.2019 had been duly replied, but the said reply has not been placed on record by complainant. Cause of death of complainants husband is denied for want of knowledge. OPs no.4 and 5 have controverted the other averments of complainant and denied any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. OPs no.4 and 5 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Evidence of the Parties

5. To prove her case, the complainant filed affidavit along with the complaint and documents i.e. brochure Ex.C-1, map Ex.C-2, allotment letter Ex.C-3, agreement to sell Ex.C-4, payment receipt Consumer Complaint No.776 of 2019 9 Ex.C-5, permission to mortgage Ex.C-6, loan sanction letter Ex.C- 6A, demand letter to bank Ex.C-7, Tripartite Agreement Ex.C-8, loan agreement Ex.C-9, payment receipts Ex.C-10 to Ex.C-13, letter for restructuring the loan Ex.C-14, payment history Ex.C-15, list of FIRs Ex.C-16, detailed map Ex.C-17, DDR Ex.C-18, Death certificate Ex.C-19, newspaper cutting HDFC notification Ex.C-20, newspaper cuttings IOB Ex.C-21 and 22, legal notice Ex.C-23, receipts Ex.C-24, delivery reports Ex.C-25 and DDR Ex.C-26.

6. OPs no.4 and 5, along with their reply, filed affidavit of Sh. Aditya Kochar, Assistant Manager, authorized representative and documents i.e. copy of public notice Ex.OP-4/1 and reply of legal notice Ex.OP-4/2 . Contentions of the Parties

7. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant, OPs no.4 and 5 and OPs no.1 and 3 in person, whereas OPs no.1-3 were exparte in this case and they have not filed any written reply and evidence in this case. On 22.01.2020, Sh. Prince Garg, who was in custody, appeared in some other cases, was allowed to join the proceedings only on behalf of OPs no.1 and 3 and he submitted that there were chances of settlement with the complainant and sought some time to materialize the same. On his request some time was granted to him, but despite that no settlement has been reached at between the parties. Consumer Complaint No.776 of 2019 10

8. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that complainant and her late husband Manohar Lal had purchased a flat no.701 for Rs.32,00,000/- from OPs no.1-3 builders and they paid a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- in advance against the receipt no.160 dated 08.04.2011. The possession was promised to be handed over within 18-21 months from the date of agreement and in the event of delay in handing over the possession of the flat, the first party shall be liable to pay Rs.3.50 per square feet X 1800 square feet-6300/- per month, as compensation for delay to the second party. For making the balance amount, the complainant and her husband took loan of Rs.18,00,000/- on 06.07.2011 and out of this the amount of Rs.13,20,000/- was disbursed by OP no.4 into the loan account of OP no.1, vide C-10 to C12. The complainant paid another amount of Rs.50,000/-, vide C-13. The complainant paid total amount of Rs.19,70,000/- (including loan amount of Rs.13,20,000/-) to OPs no.1-3. The possession was to be delivered by OPs no.1-3 within 18-21 months from the date of agreement, dated 07.04.2011 and 21 months has been expired on 07.01.2013. Despite receipt of above amount, OPs no.1-3 failed to deliver the possession within stipulated time and also failed to pay the compensation for the delayed period. OPs no.1-3 have no approvals or sanctions with regard to the above project and showed wrong map to complainant at the time of booking of above flat. Learned counsel for further argued that complainant and her late husband repaid the loan amount from 15.09.2011 to 15.02.2019, vide C-15. Consumer Complaint No.776 of 2019 11 OP no.4 got a public notice published in Amar Ujala newspaper dated 01.08.2012 (C-20) to the effect that HDFC (OP no.4) has the exclusive right and possession on the flats in the project Royal Apartments. OP no.4 could have claimed such conclusive right, only if there was default on behalf of the borrower or cancellation of the flats by OPs no.1 and 3 and not otherwise and OPs no.4 and 5 are also deficient in service. He further argued that by not completing the project and not delivering possession of the plot, within the stipulated timeframe, OPs no.1-3 committed grave deficiency in service and adopted unfair trade practice and, as such, the complainant is entitled to all the reliefs, as prayed for in the complaint.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for OPs no.4 and 5 has vehemently contended that Indian Overseas Bank has issued notice at Annexure C-14 to M/s Royal Empire and the complainant made baseless allegations against OPs no.4 and 5. The account though largely remained regular, but on certain occasions, installments were not paid on time. The complainant has made an attempt to link the incidents of May 2019 to Public Notices dated 01.08.2012 and these public notices are being cited out of context. These notices had not been issued to take over the possession of the units under SARFAESI Act, 2002 or any such other law relating to recovery. The tenor of the notices was to ensure that no third party could claim right on the properties financed by HDFC Limited and rather these notices were issued to the safeguard the interest of the borrowers of HDFC Limited as well. OPs no.4 and 5 are entitled to recover their Consumer Complaint No.776 of 2019 12 dues in accordance with law. Indian Overseas Bank has financed the project, which is different from finance of flat in question. Learned counsel for OPs no.4 and 5 further argued that legal notice dated 08.08.2019 had been duly replied by OPs no.4 and 5. There is no concern of cause of death of complainants husband with OPs no.4 and 5. Denying any deficiency in service, OPs no.4 and 5 prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Consideration of Contentions

10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions raised by the learned counsel for complainant and OPs no.4 and 5 only as the remaining parties i.e. OPs no.1-3 are exparte in this case and Sh. Prince Garg, in custody was allowed to join proceedings only on behalf of OPs no.1 and 3. We have also gone through the record of the case.

11. Undisputedly, flat no.701, Block-E, in question, was allotted to complainant, vide allotment letter dated 07.04.2011 Ex.C-

3. Agreement to Sell dated 07.04.2011, Ex.C-4 executed between the parties and as per this agreement the possession was to be offered within 18-21 months from the date of execution of agreement. Therefore date of stipulated delivery expired on 07.01.2013. The total cost of the flat was Rs.32,00,000/-. The complainant deposited the amount of Rs.19,70,000/- against the above total price of the flat, vide Ex.C-5, C-10 to C-13. Despite receipt of substantial amount, OPs failed to complete/develop the Consumer Complaint No.776 of 2019 13 flat, in question, and to hand over its possession to the complainant within the said period.

12. The whole purpose of pleadings is to give fair notice to each party of what the opponents case is and to ascertain with precision the point(s) on which the parties agree and those on which they differ. The purpose is to eradicate irrelevancy. The complaint is a concise statement of facts and if no reply is filed to the complaint, the averments made therein are deemed to have been admitted. In the present case, OPs no.1-3 are exparte. As such, the averments made in the complaint stand admitted and the evidence adduced by the complainant remains unrebutted. Thus, there is no evidence on record from the side of OPs no.1-3 that they launched their project, after obtaining requisite permissions and approvals from the competent authorities.

13. Keeping in view the above circumstances, we hold that the OPs have failed to comply with the provisions of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (in short, PAPRA). As per Section 3 (General Liabilities of Promoter) of the PAPRA, OPs were required to make full and true disclosure of the nature of their title to the land, on which such colony is developed or such building is constructed or is to be constructed, make full and true disclosure of all encumbrances on such land, including any right, title, interest or claim of any party in or over such land. They were also required to give inspection on seven days notice or demand of the layout of the colony and plan of development works to be Consumer Complaint No.776 of 2019 14 executed in a colony as approved by the prescribed authority in the case of a colony. However, the opposite parties failed to comply with Section 3 of the PAPRA.

14. As per Section 5 (Development of land into Colony) of PAPRA, OPs no.1-3 were liable to obtain permission from the competent authority for developing the colony, but they failed to produce on record any such permission. So, they also violated Section 5 of PAPRA.

15. As per Section 9 of PAPRA, every builder is required to maintain a separate account in a scheduled Bank, for depositing the amount deposited by the buyers, who intend to purchase the plots/flats, but no evidence has been led on the record by the opposite parties to prove that any account has been maintained by them in this respect. There is no evidence or pleading on record on behalf of the opposite parties in this respect. As such, the opposite parties also violated Section 9 of the PAPRA.

16. Further, as per Section 12 of the PAPRA, if the builder fails to deliver possession of the plot/apartment by the specified date, then the builder is liable to refund the amount deposited by the buyer with interest.

17. The OPs had been collecting huge amounts from the buyers for the development of the project. The OPs are not to play the game at the cost of others. When they insist upon the performance of the promise by the consumers, they are to be bound Consumer Complaint No.776 of 2019 15 by the reciprocal promises of performing their part of the agreement. OPs have failed to comply with the aforementioned provisions of PAPRA, while launching and promising to develop their project. Thus, the delay in not delivering the possession of flat within the agreed period amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, for which the complainant is liable to be suitably compensated.

18. The Act came into being in the year 1986. It is the benevolent piece of legislation to protect the consumers from exploitation. The spirit of the benevolent legislation cannot be overlooked and its object is not to be frustrated. The complainant has made payment of substantial amount to OPs with the hope to get the possession of the flat in a reasonable period. The circumstances clearly show that the opposite parties made false statement of facts about the goods and services i.e. allotment of flat and delivery of possession in a stipulated period. The act and conduct of OPs is a clear case of misrepresentation and deception, which resulted in the injury and loss of opportunity to the complainant. Had the complainant not invested their money with the OPs, they would have invested the same elsewhere. The builder is under obligation to deliver the possession of the plot/unit/flat within a reasonable period. The complainant cannot be made to wait indefinitely to get possession of the flat booked. From the facts and evidence brought on the record of the complaint, it is clearly made out that OPs i.e. builders knew from the very beginning that they had Consumer Complaint No.776 of 2019 16 not complied with the provisions of the PAPRA and Rules and would not be able to deliver the possession within the stipulated period, thus by misrepresentation induced the complainant to book the plot, due to which the complainant has suffered mental agony and harassment. It is the settled principle of law that compensation should be commensurate with the loss suffered and it should be just, fair and reasonable and not arbitrary. The builder is bound to compensate for the loss and injury suffered by the complainant for failure to deliver the possession, so has been held in catena of judgments by the Honble Supreme Court and the Honble National Commission. To get the relief, the complainant has to wage a long drawn and tedious legal battle. As such, the complainant was at loss of opportunities. In these circumstances, the complainants are entitled to the refund of the amount deposited by them, along with interest and suitable compensation.

19. The counsel for complainant relied upon judgment of this Commission passed in Consumer Complaint No.26 of 2018 on 01.11.2018 titled as "Manpreet Singh & others Vs. M/s Royale Empire & others", wherein the complaint was accepted against the same OPs.

20. As per Rule 17 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Rules, 1995, framed under Section 45 of PAPRA, it has been provided as under:-

17. Rate of interest on refund of advance money upon cancellation of agreement.- The promoter shall refund full Consumer Complaint No.776 of 2019 17 amount collected from the prospective buyers under sub section (1) of section 6 together with interest thereon at the rate of twelve per cent per annum payable from the date of receipt of amount so collected till the date of re-payment. . Now, we deal the plea of the complainant with regard to deficiency in service on the part OPs no.4 and 5. The loan agreement executed between complainant and OPs no.4 and 5 is Ex.C-9 on the record for the loan amount of Rs.18,00,000/-. OP no.4 disbursed the total amount of Rs.13,20,000/- into the loan account of OP no.1, vide Ex.C-10 to C-12 and complainant and her husband paid Rs.6,70,000/- from their own savings to OPs no.1-3. The main grievance of complainant is that OP no.4 had issued public notice dated 01.08.2012 that OP no.4 has the exclusive right and possession on the flats in the project Royal Apartments. On the other hand, the plea of OPs no.4 and 5 is that the notice was issued to the safeguard the interest of the borrowers of HDFC Limited, as the properties were financed by HDFC Limited. That notice had not been issued to take over the possession of the units under SAFAESI Act, 2002 or any such other law relating to recovery. We have perused the record of the case and also gone through the pleadings of the parties. This is not the case of the complainant that OPs no.4 and 5 had initiated any recovery proceedings against complainant against law. The complainant has also failed to establish on record that she suffered any loss due to issuance of that notice by OPs no.4 and 5 and this is not the case of the complainant that they recovered excess amount of installments from her against the terms of loan agreement. OPs no.4 and 5 specifically pleaded in para no.12 of Consumer Complaint No.776 of 2019 18 written reply that account though largely remained regular, but on certain occasions, installments were not paid on time. The complainant also relied on Ex.C-14 regarding restructure of the loan by OPs no.4 and 5. It is pertinent to mention that this letter has not been issued by OPs no.4 and 5. Actually this letter has been issued by Indian Overseas Bank Chandigarh Branch to OPs no.1-3 only. From above discussion, we reached to this conclusion that the complainant has failed to establish on record any deficiency in service on the part OPs no.4 and 5 and therefore, the complaint against opposite party No.4 is liable to be dismissed.

21. OPs no.4 and 5 advanced loan of Rs.18,00,000/- in favour of the complainant and her late husband to be paid to OPs no.1-3, regarding which Tripartite Agreement Ex.C-8 was executed between the parties on 12.07.2011. However, as per Clause-10 of the Tripartite Agreement, in case of cancellation of booking, the developer is liable to refund the loan amount to HDFC. Since on account of non-development of project and non-delivery of possession of the unit, in question, the complainant is held entitled to the refund of the deposited amount, along with interest, so first of all the outstanding dues of loan amount shall be paid by OPs no.1-3 to OPs no.4 and 5 and thereafter the remaining amount, if any, shall be refunded to the complainant.

22. In view of above discussion, this complaint is allowed against OPs no.1-3 only and the same is dismissed against OPs no.4 and 5. Following directions are issued to OPs no.1-3:- Consumer Complaint No.776 of 2019 19 A (i) to deliver the possession of flat no.701 in the project Royal Apartment complete in all respects after obtaining completion/occupation certificate from the competent authorities, subject to payment of balance sale consideration without any interest and penalty, within 60 days from the receipt of certified copy of the order;

(ii) to pay compensation in the shape of interest @ 12% per annum on the deposited amounts i.e. Rs.19,70,000/- by complainant from the date of stipulated delivery

i.e.07.01.2013 till the delivery of possession, as per above (i), for delay in handing over the possession; and

(iii) to pay composite litigation expenses and compensation on account of the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. Or in alternate B (i) to refund Rs.19,70,00/- deposited by the complainant (including Rs.13,20,000/- disbursed by OPs no.4 and 5), along with compensation for causing financial loss and depriving the complainant of the use of the said amount during the period the same remained with OPs no.1-3 in the shape of interest @ 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till realization, as per Rule 17 of PAPRA for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs no.1-3; However, it is made clear that out of the refundable amount, first of all the outstanding dues of loan amount shall be paid by OPs no.1-3 to OPs no.4-5. Thereafter adjusting the recoverable loan amount, the remaining amount, if any, shall be refunded to the complainant; and ii) to pay composite litigation expenses and compensation on account of the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. Consumer Complaint No.776 of 2019 20