2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No

3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Argued By: For the complainant : None For OPs No.1 to 3 : Ms. Niharika Goel, Advocate For OP No.4 : Deleted vide order dated 18.11.2020 For OP No.5 : Ex parte. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT This order will dispose of above mentioned three (3) Consumer Complaints filed by the complainants, under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act), as the facts and the questions of law involved in all the complaints are the same; which have been filed against the same opposite parties by the same complainant. The facts are taken from Consumer Complaint No.822 of 2019. Consumer Complaint No.822 of 2019 The complainant has filed this complaint, under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act), against the opposite parties, seeking following directions to them:

i) to hand over possession of the plot, in question; Consumer Complaint No.822 of 2019 Or refund the amount of 6,00,000/-, as agreed by opposite parties No.1 to 3, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum; ii) to pay compensation of 1,00,000/-, on account of mental agony, physical harassment, financial loss etc. suffered by the complainant; and iii) to pay 55,000/- towards litigation expenses. Facts of the Complaint

2. Brief facts, as set out in the complaint, are that opposite party No.1 issued various publications about floating of its project under the name and style of Chinar Homes, situated in village Kishanpura, Zirakpur, in the year 2010-11, for allotment of residential apartments therein. Being lured by the rosy picture drawn by opposite parties No.1 to 4, the complainant booked a plot, measuring 200 sq.yds. in that project, by depositing the total sale consideration of 25,00,000/- of the plot with opposite party No.1 at the initial stage. Opposite party No.1 assured that in case the possession of the plot is not delivered, then the opposite parties shall pay back the amount of 6,00,000/- in the year 2011. Possession of the booked plot was to be offered within 18 months from the date of agreement/allotment, with grace period of three months. However, opposite party No.1 has never issued any allotment letter qua the booked plot. The complainant kept waiting for possession of the plot, but neither the possession was delivered nor the agreed amount of 6,00,000/- was refunded, despite repeated visits and requests of the complainant. Even there was no Consumer Complaint No.822 of 2019 progress regarding development of the plot/project. Ultimately, a legal notice dated 18.09.2019 was issued to the opposite parties through registered post, which was returned unclaimed. It is further averred that the whole project of opposite party No.1 was financed by opposite party No.5. It came to notice of the complainant that opposite parties No.1 to 4 had defaulted in making repayment of the loan amount to opposite party No.5, who has already initiated recovery proceedings against it under the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (in short, SARFAESI Act) against opposite party No.1. No plot at the site has been completed and all the plots are lying in semi-furnished stage. The plot booked by the complainant, being part of the project financed by opposite party No.5, may be sold individually or along with other plots. However, the said plot cannot be made the subject matter of any kind of recovery proceedings initiated by opposite party No.5, as it has already been mortgaged with it after removal of charge/mortgage/lien over it. In case, opposite party No.5 would auction all the plots/flats together, which had been constructed by opposite parties No.1 to 4 and mortgaged with opposite party No.5, then the auction proceedings would be conducted with the condition that the physical possession of the plot would be handed over to the complainant by its successor immediately after taking over the project from opposite party No.1. Cause of action firstly accrued to the complainant to file the complaint in the year 2010, when he booked the plot, in question, by depositing a sum of 3,00,000/- with opposite parties No.1 to 4. The aforesaid act Consumer Complaint No.822 of 2019 and conduct of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint. Defence of the Opposite Parties

3. Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 to 3 appeared through counsel and filed joint reply to the complaint. Name of opposite party No.4 was deleted from the array of parties, as per order dated 18.11.2020, whereas` opposite party No.5 did not appear despite its service and was proceeded against ex parte, vide order dated 07.01.2020.

4. Opposite parties No.1 to 3, in their reply, raised preliminary objections that the complaint is barred by limitation, as the complainant claims only the refund of the amount deposited, by relying upon receipt dated 23.12.2010 and not possession of the plot, whereas the present complaint has been filed on 13.11.2019. No explanation has been given by the complainant, as to why he did not claim refund of the amount after expiry of 27 months i.e. the stipulated period for delivery of possession of the plot. No application under Section 24-A of the Act seeking condonation of delay has been filed, along with the complaint. The complainant is a property dealer and a big financer. He has purchased number of plots for resale. Later on, the complainant got only 3 plots, as he showed his inability to sell the plots with an understanding that he would sell it off in the open market. Further, the complainant is currently residing in his own house in Panchkula. He failed to plead that the plots were purchased by him for his personal use. Hence, he does not fall under the definition of consumer. No Consumer Complaint No.822 of 2019 cause of action has accrued in favour of the complainant to file the present complaint. It is further pleaded that the answering opposite parties have been prevented from offering possession of the fully developed project, on account of force majeure circumstances; which are beyond their control. After the issuance of letter of allotment, there has been increase in the cost of construction to the extent of 30%, as a result of which the entire economics of the project have increased. The work at the site is going on and there is every likelihood that the opposite parties would be in a position to offer possession of the plot by the end of 30.06.2020. The opposite parties have spent a sum of 1,75,00,000/- on electricity work, which is complete now. The water is available from the ground floors and the sewerage is also ready. By holding ground breaking ceremony in May, 2011, the answering opposite parties had started the construction of the project. In the meantime, they approached opposite party No.5 for partly funding the project. On 29.03.2012, opposite party No.5-Bank sanctioned the Term Loan of 32.00 Crores. In the Loan Sanction Letter, the Bank had admitted that there were three financial sources to meet the construction of plots of 111.95 Crores, including Promoters contribution of 32.00. Thus, the share of the Bank in the total cost of the project i.e. 111.95+30.50+142.45 Crores was merely 22.46% and the major contribution was of the answering opposite parties i.e. 44.28% and plot buyers 33.26%. Thus, the plot buyers had a more stake in the project than the Bank. It is further pleaded that the answering opposite parties had handed over to the Bank the Title Consumer Complaint No.822 of 2019 Deeds. However, the Bank has played fraud with them. The Bank has forged and fabricated a document called Letter Evidencing Deposit of the Title Deeds dated 30.03.2012. Though the Title Deeds had been handed over to the Bank on 30.03.2012, yet fraudulently, the Bank had recorded therein that the same stood deposited on 29.03.2012. Such antedating was done to circumvent the rigours of Section 17 of the Registration Act, which required that any such letter in presenti would require registration. However, in the Title Deeds, there is no mention of Building or Building Project and there is only mention of land. Through the aforesaid Letter Evidencing Deposit of the Title Deeds dated 30.03.2012, besides creating mortgage against land, the mortgage against buildings has also been sought to be created. This addition of word Buildings in the said letter dated 30.03.2012 would simply mean putting in of condition. As per law, by putting in of the Condition in the said letter, the same would require Registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act. It means that a Non Operatable Mortgage stood created in favour of the Bank. It is further pleaded that the project has been delayed due to the reasons beyond the control of opposite parties No.1 to 3, such as prices of building material including sand, crusher etc. having gone up from 50% to 300%. Faced with that situation, the answering opposite parties through letter dated 18.01.2014 requested the Bank to extend fresh loan of 35.00 Crore, in order to complete the balance construction work. Later on, limit of loan sought was increased to 38.00 Crores. However, the Bank had failed and neglected to understand the gravity Consumer Complaint No.822 of 2019 of the situation; as a result of which the financial position/health of the answering opposite parties had gone under great stress. The Bank has processed the request for further loan with delay. Vide letter dated 17.09.2014, the Branch office of Bank showed interest in sanctioning loan of 19 Crore only, whereas the Head Office had sanctioned 10.85 Crore only. On the one hand, the Bank had sanctioned a meagre term loan of 10.85 Crore and on the other hand, it had asked the opposite party-Company to first arrange 38.18 Crore from other sources. Having no option, the answering opposite parties, vide letter dated 06.02.2015, requested the Bank to release the said loan amount. However, the Bank did not respond to the above letter, rather issued legal/demand notice dated 02.06.2015. The answering opposite parties, vide letter dated 29.06.2015, requested the Bank to withdraw the said notice and grant additional financial assistance of 38.00 Crore as per their request made in July, 2014. However, the Bank issued the Possession Notice dated 28.10.2015 and proceeded to take action under SARFAESI Act, by issuing demand notice dated 14.07.2015. Meetings with plot buyers were arranged and entire situation was explained to them. The complainant agreed to pay 4,55,000/- towards the balance amount, along with interest on the delayed payment to the tune of 14,061/- and 5,186/- towards Service Tax. However, the complainant, like some other plot buyers, had breached the promises and issued false notice upon the answering opposite parties. Thus, the dispute is liable to be resolved through arbitration. On merits, facts qua booking of the plot and Consumer Complaint No.822 of 2019 deposit of the amount, as mentioned in the complaint were admitted. All other allegations levelled in the complaint were denied and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed. Evidence of the Parties

5. To prove his claim, the complainant filed his own affidavit, along with copies of documents i.e. his Aadhaar Card Ex.C-1, Calculation Sheet Ex.C-2, payment receipts/Discount Voucher/letters Ex.C-3 (colly.), legal notice dated 18.09.2019 Ex.C-4, unclaimed envelopes Ex.C-5 (colly.) and newspaper advertisement Ex.C-6.

6. Opposite parties No.1 to 3, in support of their defence, filed affidavit of Sh. Baldev Chand Bansal, Director only. Contentions of the Parties

7. We have heard learned counsel for opposite parties No.1 to 3, as none appeared on behalf of the complainant at the time of arguments.

8. Learned counsel for opposite parties No.1 to 3 has vehemently contended that the delay in completing the project is due to force majeure circumstances, such as rise in prices of land, construction material etc. It is further contended that opposite parties No.1 to 3 requested opposite party No.5-Bank to partly fund the project, in question. The Bank sanctioned the Term Loan of 32 Crore. The share of the Bank was merely 22.46%, whereas major contribution was of opposite parties No.1 to 3 i.e. 44.28% and plot buyers contribution was 33.26%. Opposite parties No.1 to 3 gave Title Deeds to the Bank on 30.03.2012, but the Bank fraudulently Consumer Complaint No.822 of 2019 forged and fabricated a document called Letter Evidencing Deposit of the Title Deeds dated 30.03.2012, in which it is wrongly mentioned that the Title Deeds stood deposited on 29.03.2012. The Bank put a condition in that letter; which would require Registration under Section

17 of the Registration Act. Thus, its means that a Non-Operatable Mortgage stood created in favour of the Bank. Further request was made by opposite parties No.1 to 3 to Bank to release fresh loan of

35 Crore. However, vide letter dated 17.09.2014, the Branch office of Bank showed interest in sanctioning loan of 19 Crore only, whereas the Head Office had sanctioned 10.85 Crore only. Later on, the Bank issued the demand notice and Possession Notice dated 28.10.2015 and proceeded to take action against opposite parties No.1 to 4, under SARFAESI Act. Opposite parties No.1 to 3 suffered financial constraints and matter was explained to the plot buyers. The complainant agreed to pay 4,55,000/- towards the balance amount, along with interest of 14,061/- on the delayed payment and 5,186/- towards Service Tax. However, the complainant, like some other plot buyers, had breached the promises and issued false notice upon the answering opposite parties. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties No.1 to 3 and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Consideration of Contentions

9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for opposite parties No.1 to Consumer Complaint No.822 of 2019

10. So far as the objection of opposite parties No.1 to 3 that the complainant, being a property dealer and financer, does not fall under the definition of consumer, as defined in the Act and he purchased the plot, in question, and other plots for investment purposes, is concerned, it needs to be mentioned that there is no evidence from the side of opposite parties No.1 to 3 to prove that the complainant has indulged in sale/purchase of property for commercial purpose and simple assertion in this regard in their reply is not sufficient to prove this fact. Honble National Commission in M/s IREO FIVERIVER PVT. LTD. v. SURINDER KUMAR SINGLA & OTHERS First Appeal No.1358 of 2016, decided on 29.11.2016, while relying upon its earlier decision in Kavit Ahuja v. Shipra Estate and Jai Krishna Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (1) CPJ 31 (NC), held the complainants as consumers, observing that the appellant failed to show any cogent evidence, which may indicate that the respondents/complainants or any of them has been indulging in sale purchase of the properties or that the complainants or any one of them had booked the subject plots in the development project undertaken by the appellant with the intention to sell the plot on subsequent date for earning profit. In the instant case also, as already said above, there is no evidence led by opposite parties No.1 to 3 to prove that the complainant is indulging in sale purchase of properties and that he purchased the plot, in question, for further sale or for earning profits. Thus, in view of the ratio of law laid down in the above cited Consumer Complaint No.822 of 2019 authorities, the above said objection of opposite parties No.1 to 3 is rejected and the complainant is held to be consumer under the Act.

11. The other objection of opposite parties No.1 to 3 is that the dispute between the parties is liable to be referred to arbitration. It needs to be mentioned that the Larger Bench of the Honble National Commission, vide order dated 13.07.2017, passed in Consumer Complaint No.701 of 2015 titled as Aftab Singh Versus EMAAR MGF Land Limited & Anr. held that an Arbitration Clause in the afore- stated kind of Agreements between the complainants and the builder cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of a Consumer Fora, notwithstanding the amendments made to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. Civil Appeal No.(s) 23512-23513 of 2017 (M/s EMAAR MGF Land Limited & Anr. Vs. Aftab Singh) filed against the said order of the Honble National Commission was also dismissed by the Honble Apex Court, vide order dated 13.02.2018. The Review Petitions (C) Nos.2629-2630 of 2018 have also been dismissed by the Honble Apex Court on 10.12.2018. Consequently, the existence of an Arbitration Clause or otherwise is not a bar to resolve this dispute by this Commission. Accordingly, this objection of opposite parties No.1 to 3 is also rejected.

12. So far as the other objection of opposite parties No.1 to 3 regarding limitation is concerned, admittedly the complainant has made the substantial payment towards the price of the plot, in question, to the opposite parties No.1 to 3, but neither the possession of the same has been delivered, nor the amount deposited by him has Consumer Complaint No.822 of 2019 been refunded till date. It is now well settled that in such cases there is a continuous cause of action till the possession is delivered or the amount is refunded along with interest, compensation and costs etc. Honble National Commission in Navin Sharma (Dr.) & others v. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. 2016(2) CLT 457 has held that unless or until the complainants get possession of the flats, they have got continuous cause of action. In para 8 of the said judgment it has been observed by the Honble National Commission as under:-

8. The first submission made by the counsel for the opposite party was that the case is barred by time. This argument was raised merely for the sake of cavil. It is now well settled that unless or until the complainants get the possession of the flats, they have got continuous cause of action. This view finds support from this authority reported in Raghava Estates Ltd.

v. Vishnupuram Colony Welfare Association Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.35805 of 2012, decided on 07.12.2012.

13. In another case Satish Kumar Pandey & Anr. v. M/s Unitech Ltd. 2015 (3) CPJ 440 (NC), the Honble National Commission held in Para-17 as follows:

17. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that since the last date stipulated in the buyers agreement for giving possession of the flat to them expired more than two years ago, the complaint is barred by limitation prescribed in Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act. It is now settled legal proposition that failure to deliver possession being a continuous wrong it constitutes a recurrent cause of action and, therefore, so long as the possession is not delivered to him the buyers can always approach a Consumer Forum. It is only when the seller flatly refuses to give possession that the period of limitation prescribed in Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act would begin to run. In that case, the complaint has to be filed within two years from the date on which the seller refuses to deliver possession of the flats to the complainants at any point of time and, Consumer Complaint No.822 of 2019 therefore, the cause of action continues to subsist in favour of the complainants. Reliance in this regard may be placed upon the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Meerut Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta IV (2012) CPJ 12, where the Honble Supreme Court held that in such a case the buyer has a recurrent cause for filing a complaint for non- delivery of possession of the plot. Similarly, in the present case, there is no denial on the part of opposite parties No.1 to 3 to deliver the possession. Since neither possession has been delivered nor the amount deposited by the complainant has been refunded till date, so in view of the ratio of the law laid down in the above noted authorities, it is a continuous cause of action and the complaint filed by the complainant is within limitation.

14. Now, coming to merits of the case, firstly it needs to be mentioned that in all the three complaints, the complainant has filed same and ditto documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6. Admittedly, in the present case, the complainant booked a plot in the aforesaid project of opposite parties No.1 to 4 and his Expression of Interest for a plot measuring 200 sq.yds. at the rate of 15,000/- was accepted, vide letter dated 25.06.2012 Ex.C-3 (colly.). It is also mentioned therein that a sum of 3,00,000/- was received by opposite parties No.1 to 4 towards the said plot, vide receipts No.4789 and 4790. The other receipts pertain to other complaints.

15. The complainant alleged that opposite party No.1 had assured him that if it fails to deliver possession of the plot, then it will pay back the amount for the said plot to the tune of 6,00,000/-. However, no such agreement/undertaking has been placed on record to prove this fact. In Para-17 of the complaint, it is averred that the Consumer Complaint No.822 of 2019 complainant has paid a sum of 3,00,000/- with opposite parties No.1 to 4 towards booking of the plot. This fact is further evident from Calculation Sheet, Ex.C-2, filed by the complainant, in which the paid amounts are shown as 2,50,000/- and 50,000/- against receipts Nos.4789 and 4790; totaling 3,00,000/-. The complainant also produced copies of receipt No.4789 dated 25.06.2012 for 2,50,000/- and No.4790 dated 25.06.2012 for 50,000/-, Ex.C-3 (colly.); which prove deposit of a total sum of 3,00,000/-. This fact is also evident from Expression of Interest dated 25.06.2012 Ex.C-3 (colly.). Thus, it is held that a only sum of 3,00,000/- stood deposited towards the booking of the plot, in question.

16. It needs to be mentioned that neither any allotment letter has been issued nor any agreement has been executed for the plot booked by the complainant. It amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties No.1 to 3. There is no document on record, mentioning the stipulated period for delivery of possession of the plot. In our view the possession of a property is to be delivered within a reasonable period of three years from the date of booking/allotment letter/agreement. The expression of interest of the complainant for booking the plot was accepted by opposite parties No.1 to 3, vide letter dated 25.06.2012. Therefore, it is held that possession of the plot was to be delivered within three years from the said date i.e. up to 24.06.2015. Opposite parties No.1 to 3 pleaded that the work at the site is going on and the possession of the plot was likely to be delivered by the end of 30.06.2020. However, that period has also Consumer Complaint No.822 of 2019 expired, but there is no sign of delivery of possession of the plot. Moreover, no documentary evidence has been led by opposite parties No.1 to 3 in support of the pleadings made by them in their reply.

17. It also needs to be mentioned that opposite parties No.1 to

3 have also failed to prove that the requisite approvals and sanctions were obtained by them from the competent authorities before launching the said project. As per Section 5 (Development of land into Colony) of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (in short, PAPRA), opposite parties No.1 to 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 violated Section 5 of PAPRA.

18. As per Section 3 (General Liabilities of Promoter) of PAPRA, opposite parties No.1 to 3 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 executed in a colony as approved by the prescribed authority in the case of a colony. However, they failed to comply with Section 3 of the PAPRA.

19. As per Section 9 of PAPRA, every builder is required to maintain a separate account in a scheduled Bank, for depositing the Consumer Complaint No.822 of 2019 amount deposited by the buyers, who intend to purchase the plots/flats, but no evidence has been led on the record by opposite parties No.1 to 3 to prove that any account has been maintained by them in this respect. As such, they also violated Section 9 of the PAPRA.

20. As per Rule 17 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Rules, 1995, framed under Section 45 of the 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 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.

21. The Act came into being in the year 1986. It is one of the benevolent pieces 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 opposite parties No.1 to 3 with the hope to get the possession of the plot within a reasonable time. The circumstances clearly show that opposite parties No.1 to 3 made false statement of facts about the goods and services i.e. allotment of land and development thereof within a stipulated period and ultimate delivery of possession. The act and conduct of opposite parties No.1 to 3 is a clear case of misrepresentation and deception, which resulted in injury and loss of opportunity to the complainant. There is escalation in the price of construction also. The builder is under obligation to Consumer Complaint No.822 of 2019 deliver the possession of the plot within a reasonable period. From the facts and evidence brought on the record of the complaint, it is clearly made out that opposite parties No.1 to 3, i.e. builders, knew from the very beginning that they had not complied with various provisions of the PAPRA and the Rules framed thereunder and would not be able to deliver the possession within the stipulated period and, 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.

22. The complainant has also pleaded that opposite parties No.1 to 3 got financed the project, in question, from opposite party No.5-Bank and later on they defaulted in repayment of loan amount; for which opposite party No.5-Bank has initiated recovery proceedings against them under the provisions of SARFAESI Act. Opposite parties No.1 to 3 also admitted this fact in their reply. The complainant has prayed that in case, opposite party No.5 would auction all the plots/flats mortgaged with it, then the auction proceedings would be conducted with the condition that the physical possession of the plot Consumer Complaint No.822 of 2019 booked by the complainant would be handed over to him by its successor immediately after taking over the project from opposite party No.1.

23. In this regard, it needs to be mentioned that the taking of loan by opposite party No.1 from opposite party No.5-Bank and initiation of proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Act against opposite party No.1 is a separate matter. However, since the alternative relief of possession of the plot or refund of the amount deposited by the complainant is going to be awarded, so it will meet the ends of justice. It also needs to be mentioned that there is no privity of contract between opposite party No.5 and the complainant, nor any deficiency in service against it has been alleged or proved on record. Thus, the complaint against opposite party No.5 is liable to be dismissed.

24. In view of our above discussion, the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties No.1 to 3 have been duly proved on record. Thus, opposite parties No.1 to 3 are liable to deliver the actual and physical possession of the developed plot, measuring 200 sq.yds. complete in all respects with agreed facilities and execute the Sale/Conveyance Deed, subject to payment of balance sale consideration by the complainant, without any interest or penalty. For delay in delivery of possession, the complainant is entitled to compensation calculated at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount deposited by him after the expiry of reasonable period for delivery of possession i.e. from 25.06.2015 till delivery of actual and Consumer Complaint No.822 of 2019 physical possession of the plot, in the aforesaid manner. In case, opposite parties No.1 to 3 will not be able to deliver possession, then they shall refund the entire amount deposited by the complainant i.e. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lac only), along with compensation on account of financial loss suffered by the complainant, for depriving him of the utilization of the said amount during the period it remained with them at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till realization, as per Rule 17 of PAPRA. Besides this, the complainant is also entitled to litigation costs and other expenses.

25. Accordingly, the complaint is partly allowed against opposite parties No.1 to 3 and the same is dismissed against opposite party No.5. Following directions are issued to opposite parties No.1 to

i) to deliver actual, physical and legal possession of the plot, measuring 200 sq.yds. complete in all respects, with all the agreed facilities and execute the Sale/Conveyance Deed in favour of the complainant, subject to payment of balance sale consideration by him, without any interest or penalty. ii) to pay compensation calculated at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount deposited by the complainant i.e. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lac only) from 25.06.2015 till delivery of actual and physical possession of the plot, as ordered above; and iii) to pay 11,000/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand only) towards litigation cost and other expenses. Consumer Complaint No.822 of 2019 iv) The remaining sale consideration payable by the complainant shall be adjusted from the aforesaid liability of opposite parties No.1 to 3.

26. In case, opposite parties No.1 to 3 will not be able to deliver possession of the plot, then they shall:

i) to refund the entire amount deposited by the complainant i.e. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lac only), along with compensation on account of financial loss suffered by the complainant, for depriving him of the utilization of the said amount during the period it remained with them at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till realization, as per Rule 17 of PAPRA; ii) to pay 11,000/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand only) towards litigation cost and other expenses. Consumer Complaint No.823 of 2019

27. Similarly, in this case, the complainant booked a plot in the aforesaid project of opposite parties No.1 to 3 and his Expression of Interest for a plot measuring 200 sq.yds. at the rate of 15,000/- was accepted, vide letter dated 13.03.2012 Ex.C-3 (colly.). This fact has not been denied by opposite parties No.1 to 3 in their reply. As per Calculation Sheet, Ex.C-2, the complainant paid a sum of 3,00,000/- towards the cost of the plot, vide receipt No.4090 dated 13.03.2012, Ex.C-3 (colly.). The other receipts pertain to other complaints. However, no allotment letter/agreement was issued/executed for Consumer Complaint No.822 of 2019 allotment of the plot. Other averments are similar to that Consumer Complaint No.822 of 2019 and similar prayer has been made.

28. Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 to 3 appeared through counsel and filed joint reply to the complaint, on the similar lines of their reply as given in Consumer Complaint No.822 of 2019. Name of opposite party No.4 was deleted from the array of parties, as per order dated 18.11.2020, whereas opposite party No.5 did not appear despite its service and was proceeded against ex parte, vide order dated 07.01.2020. Similar evidence has been led by the parties and similar arguments have been advanced, as led/advanced in the main case.

29. In view of the reasons and discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.822 of 2019 (Satkar Singh Baweja v. BCL Homes Limited & Ors.), this complaint is partly allowed against opposite parties No.1 to 3 and the same is dismissed against opposite party No.5. Following directions are issued to opposite parties No.1 to 3:

i) to deliver actual and physical and legal possession of the plot, measuring 200 sq.yds. complete in all respects, with all the agreed facilities and execute the Sale/Conveyance Deed in favour of the complainant, subject to payment of balance sale consideration by him, without any interest or penalty. ii) to pay compensation calculated at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount deposited by the complainant i.e. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lac only) from 13.03.2015 till delivery of actual and physical possession of the plot, as ordered above; and Consumer Complaint No.822 of 2019 iii) to pay 11,000/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand only) towards litigation cost and other expenses. iv) The remaining sale consideration payable by the complainant shall be adjusted from aforesaid liability of opposite parties No.1 to 3.

30. In case, opposite parties No.1 to 3 will not be able to deliver possession of the plot, then they shall:

i) to refund the entire amount deposited by the complainant i.e. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lac only), along with compensation on account of financial loss suffered by the complainant, for depriving him of the utilization of the said amount during the period it remained with them at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till realization, as per Rule 17 of PAPRA; ii) to pay 11,000/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand only) towards litigation cost and other expenses. Consumer Complaint No.824 of 2019

31. Similarly, in this case, the complainant booked a 200 sq.yds. plot in the aforesaid project of opposite parties No.1 to 3, by depositing a sum of 2,70,000/-, vide receipt No.002662 dated 23.12.2010, Ex.C-3 (colly.). This fact has not been denied by opposite parties No.1 to 3 in their reply. Even as per Calculation Sheet, Ex.C-2, the complainant paid a sum of 2,70,000/- towards the cost of the plot, vide receipt No.002662 dated 23.12.2010 Ex.C-3 (colly.). The other receipts pertain to other complaints. However, no allotment Consumer Complaint No.822 of 2019 letter/agreement was issued/executed for allotment of the plot. Other averments are similar to that Consumer Complaint No.822 of 2019 and similar prayer has been made.

32. Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 to 3 appeared through counsel and filed joint reply to the complaint, on the similar lines of their reply as given in Consumer Complaint No.822 of 2019. Name of opposite party No.4 was deleted from the array of parties, as per order dated 18.11.2020, whereas opposite party No.5 did not appear despite its service and was proceeded against ex parte, vide order dated 07.01.2020. Similar evidence has been led by the parties and similar arguments have been advanced, as led/advanced in the main case.

33. In view of the reasons and discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.822 of 2019 (Satkar Singh Baweja v. BCL Homes Limited & Ors.), this complaint is partly allowed against opposite parties No.1 to 3 and the same is dismissed against opposite party No.5. Following directions are issued to opposite parties No.1 to 3:

i) to deliver actual, physical and legal possession of the plot, measuring 200 sq.yds. complete in all respects, with all the agreed facilities and execute the Sale/Conveyance Deed in favour of the complainant, subject to payment of balance sale consideration by them, without any interest or penalty. ii) to pay compensation calculated at the rate of 12% per annum on the aforesaid amount deposited by the complainant i.e. 2,70,000/- (Rupees Two Lac and Seventy Thousand) from Consumer Complaint No.822 of 2019 23.12.2013 till delivery of actual and physical possession of the plot, as ordered above; and iii) to pay 11,000/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand only) towards litigation cost and other expenses. iv) The remaining sale consideration payable by the complainant shall be adjusted from aforesaid liability of opposite parties No.1 to 3.

34. In case, opposite parties No.1 to 3 will not be able to deliver possession of the plot, then they shall: iii) to refund the entire amount deposited by the complainant i.e. 2,70,000/- (Rupees Two Lac and Seventy Thousand), along with compensation, on account of financial loss suffered by the complainant, for depriving him of the utilization of the said amount during the period it remained with them, at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till realization, as per Rule 17 of PAPRA; iv) to pay 11,000/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand only) towards litigation cost and other expenses.

35. It needs to be mentioned that the Discount Vouchers dated 13.08.2012 and 04.12.2012, issued by opposite party No.1, offering discount voucher of 3,33,333/- to the complainant, have been produced on record of all the complaints as Ex.C-3 (colly.). However, the same cannot be treated towards the payments made by the complainant to the opposite parties No.1 to 3 and no relief can be given to the complainant qua the same. However, if the complainant Consumer Complaint No.822 of 2019 wants any relief qua those Discount Vouchers, then he will be at liberty to avail any other liberty available to him, in accordance with law.

36. The compliance of the orders shall be made by opposite parties No.1 to 3 within a period of 45 days of the receipt of certified copy of the order. (JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL) MEMBER (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER December 07, 2020. (Gurmeet S)