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

3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Argued By (CC No.52 of 2020): For the complainant : Sh. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate For OPs No.1 to 3 : None For OP No.4 : Ex parte. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT This order will dispose of above mentioned four (4) Consumer Complaints filed by the different complainants against the same builder/developer, under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act), as similar questions of law and facts are involved in all the complaints`. The facts are taken from Consumer Complaint No.52 of 2020. Consumer Complaint No.52 of 2020 The complainants, who are husband and wife, have filed this complaint, under Section 17 of the Act, against the opposite parties, seeking following directions to them: Consumer Complaint No.52 of 2020

i) to deliver possession of the apartment, complete in all respects, as was promised at the time of booking, with Completion and Occupation Certificate issued by the competent authority, along with compensation at the rate of 18% on the amount deposited by the complainants till realization; Or in the Alternative: Refund the principal amount paid i.e. 30,00,113/-, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till the date of actual refund; ii) to pay compensation of 3,50,000/-, on account of mental and physical harassment and monetary loss suffered by the complainant; and iii) to pay 50,000/- towards litigation expenses. Facts of the Complaint

2. Brief facts, as set out in the complaint, are that complainant No.1 is a business woman, who has to travel to tricity for her business interest. Therefore, she, along with her husband, complainant No.2, applied for allotment of a property in the project of the opposite parties namely Ishaan Heights, situated in Sector 112, Greater Mohali, after being induced by the publicity made by them about the said project. The Application Form was signed by them on 17.10.2013, for allotment of 2 BHK apartment No.A-401, situated in Tower-A, measuring 1220 sq.ft. That flat was allotted to them, vide allotment letter Ex.C-1. The basic sale price of that apartment was fixed as 34,16,000/- plus 61,000/- towards Preferential Location Charges (PLC), 50,000/- as Consumer Complaint No.52 of 2020 club membership, 45,000/- as power back up charges and 25,000/- as Interest Free Maintenance Security (IFMS). Thus, the total cost of the said unit was 35,97,000/-. Initial payment of 1,00,000/- was made by the complainants. Agreement for Apartment (in short, agreement), Ex.C-2, was executed between the parties on 22.12.2013/03.01.2014. As per Clause-11 of the Application Form, Ex.C-1, possession of the said unit was to be delivered within 24 months with grace period of 6 months from the date of execution of the agreement. However, the opposite parties misguided the complainants, because as per Clause-20 of the agreement, possession was to be delivered within 30 months with extended period of 6 months from the date of execution of the agreement. The opposite parties admitted that they did not have the necessary approvals for setting up the project and the said extension was given to the opposite parties for applying and obtaining necessary approvals for the project, in question. However, the complainants paid a total sum of 30,00,113/- to the opposite parties towards the price of the unit, as per details given in Para-7 of the complaint. At the time of execution of the agreement, the cost of the unit was settled as 34,16,000/-, but in demand letters dated 28.09.2017, the BSP has been mentioned as 35,14,000/-. However, in the allotment letter and agreement, the agreed BSP is mentioned as 34,16,000/- and there is an increase of 98,000/- without any reason. However, in the next demand letter dated 23.11.2017, the opposite parties demanded a sum of 16,73,333/-, including 1,00,000/- towards covered parking, which Consumer Complaint No.52 of 2020 was not mentioned in the Application Form and agreement. However, they reduced the paid amount, indicating that Service Tax had been deducted, but no explanation was given with regard to rate of tax etc. They only explained that increase in BSP was due to increase in area of the unit. In fact, the demand was raised for 80% of the construction, whereas in the demand notice, the opposite parties had included all the dues to be paid at the time of possession with 5% i.e. IFMS, power back up, PLC etc. The same charges again reflected in the demand letter dated 13.12.2017. The demands were not made, as per payment schedule or level of construction. However, after receipt of 90% of the sale consideration, the opposite parties failed to deliver possession of the unit within the stipulated period. No development was carried at the site. The complainants visited the office of the opposite parties various times, but they did not respond to their queries. Thus, the complainants stopped making further payments. The agreement, Ex.C-2, is one-sided and is heavily in favour of the opposite parties; which is violation of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (in short, PAPRA). The aforesaid act 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, but failed to file reply/written statement within the prescribed period of 45 days as per provisions of the Act and, as such, their right to file written statement was closed, vide order dated 31.08.2020. Consumer Complaint No.52 of 2020 Opposite party No.4 did not appear despite her service and, as such, she was proceeded against ex parte, vide order dated 09.07.2020. Evidence of the Complainants

4. To prove their claim, the complainants filed their joint self attested affidavit, along with copies of documents i.e. allotment letter Ex.C-1, Agreement for Apartment dated 22.12.2013/03.01.2014 Ex.C- 2, payment plan Ex.C-3, receipt dated 23.10.2013 Ex.C-4, demand letters Ex.C-5A to Ex.C-5F and e-mails Ex.C-6 (colly.). Contentions of the Parties

5. I have heard learned counsel for the complainants and have gone through the written arguments submitted on their behalf and record carefully, as none appeared on behalf of opposite parties No.1 to 3 at the time of arguments despite repeated calls.

6. The sum and substance of oral and written arguments of the complainants is that the opposite parties failed to deliver possession of the unit allotted to the complainants within the stipulated period, despite receipt of 90% of the sale consideration from them. The opposite parties kept on changing the stipulated period fixed for delivery of possession of the unit. As per Clause 11 of the allotment letter Ex.C-1, possession was to be delivered within 24 months with grace period of 6 months from the date of agreement, whereas per Clause-20 of the agreement, Ex.C-2, it was to be delivered within 30 months with extended period of 6 months from the date of execution of the agreement. The opposite parties kept on utilizing the amount deposited by the allottees, including the complainants, for their own Consumer Complaint No.52 of 2020 cause, without bothering to complete the development works at the site and to deliver possession of the flat to him. They also failed to obtain the necessary approvals before launching the said project. Thus, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and the complainants are entitled to all the reliefs sought for in the complaint. Consideration of Contentions

7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the complainants.

8. Undisputedly, the complainants were allotted the flat, in question, vide allotment letter Ex.C-1; wherein BSP of the unit is mentioned as 34,16,000/-, plus 61,000/- towards PLC, 25,000/- as Interest Free Maintenance Security (IFMS); 50,000/- as club membership and 45,000/- as power back up charges; totaling 35,97,000/-. However, by miscalculation, the total value of the unit is wrongly mentioned in the allotment letter as 35,36,000/-, which actually is 35,97,000/-. Agreement for Apartment, Ex.C-2, was executed between the parties on 22.12.2013/03.01.2014. In Payments Annexure-1 of the said agreement also, same figures are given and total cost of the unit is mentioned as 35,97,000/-. Although, in letters dated 28.09.2017 and 23.11.2017, 13.12.2017, Ex.C-5C, Ex.C-5D and Ex.C-5E, respectively, the BSP of the unit is mentioned as 35,14,000/-. In place of club membership charges, there is mention of car/covered parking charges of 1,00,000/- and total value is shown as 37,45,000/- in letter Ex.C-5D. However, in the allotment letter and Consumer Complaint No.52 of 2020 agreement, Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2, there is no mention of car parking charges. Be that as it may, the parties are governed by the terms and conditions of the allotment letter Ex.C-1 and agreement, Ex.C-2, wherein the total price of the unit is mentioned as 35,97,000/-. As per letter dated 24.01.2019 Ex.C-5F, the opposite parties had received a sum of 28,28,638/- from the complainants. However, as per payment plan-cum-calculation sheet Ex.C-3, the complainants paid a total sum of 30,00,113/- to the opposite parties towards the price of the unit, vide receipt Ex.C-4 and payment plan-cum-calculation sheet Ex.C-3. Even vide e-mail dated 19.02.2019, Ex.C-6 (colly.), the complainants requested the opposite parties to check their account, as the complainants deposited the total amount of 30,00,113/-, which was not matching with record of the opposite parties. However, no reply to that e-mail was given. There is no rebuttal on record from the side of the opposite parties to disprove the payment of this amount by the complainants to them.

9. As per Clause 11 of the allotment letter, possession was to be delivered within 24 months with grace period of 6 months from the date of agreement, whereas per Clause-20 of the agreement dated 22.12.2013/03.01.2014, Ex.C-2, it was to be delivered within 30 months with extended period of 6 months from the date of execution of the agreement; failing which the opposite parties were liable to pay penalty at the rate of 5/- per sq.ft. per month of the super area of the unit, as per Clause-28 of the agreement. Consumer Complaint No.52 of 2020

10. Since there is no date on the allotment letter Ex.C-1, so the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 22.12.2013/03.01.2014, Ex.C-2, will prevail. Thus, it means that the possession of the unit was to be delivered within 36 (30+6) months from the date of execution of agreement Ex.C-2. Since there are two dates on agreement i.e. 22.12.2013/03.01.2014, so I take the said period of 36 months from the later date i.e. 03.01.2014 as there is no much different between 22.12.2013 to 03.01.2014 (just 13 days). Moreover, the complainants have also pleaded in Para No.4 o the complaint that the agreement was signed on 03.01.2014. Thus, it is held that the possession of the unit was to be delivered up to 03.01.2017. However, the opposite parties failed to deliver possession of the unit within that period.

11. 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. No amount of proof can substitute pleadings, which are the foundation of the claim of the parties. At the sake of repetition, it is relevant to mention here that in the present case, opposite parties No.1 to 3 failed to file reply/written statement within the prescribed period of 45 days as per provisions of the Act and, as such, their right to file written statement was closed, vide order dated 31.08.2020. Opposite party No.4 did not appear despite her service and, as such, she was Consumer Complaint No.52 of 2020 proceeded against ex parte, vide order dated 09.07.2020. Thus, all the averments of the complaint stands admitted and the evidence adduced by the complainants remains unrebutted; for which an adverse inference is to be drawn against the opposite parties.

12. There is also no evidence on record to prove that the requisite approvals for setting up the said project have been obtained by the opposite parties, which amounts to violation of provisions of PAPRA.

13. As per Section 3 (General Liabilities of Promoter) of the PAPRA, the opposite parties were required to make full and true disclosure of the nature of their title to the land, on which such project 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 project, as approved by the prescribed authority in the case of a project. However, they failed to comply with Section 3 of the PAPRA.

14. As per Section 5 (Development of land into Colony) of PAPRA, the opposite parties were liable to obtain permission from the competent authority for developing the project, but they failed to produce on record any such valid permission. So, they also violated Section 5 of PAPRA.

15. As per Section 9 of PAPRA, every builder is required to Consumer Complaint No.52 of 2020 maintain a separate account in a scheduled Bank, for depositing the amount deposited by the buyers, who intend to purchase the plots/flats/commercial space/unit, 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. As such, the opposite parties also violated Section 9 of the PAPRA.

16. 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. 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 complainants have made payment of substantial amount to the opposite parties, with the hope to get the possession of the flat within a reasonable period. The circumstances clearly show that they made false statement of facts about the goods and services

i.e. allotment of unit and delivery of possession in a stipulated period. The act and conduct of the opposite parties is a clear case of misrepresentation and deception, which resulted in the injury and loss of opportunity to the complainants. There is escalation in the price of construction also. The builder is under obligation to deliver the Consumer Complaint No.52 of 2020 possession of the plot/unit/flat/space within a reasonable period. From the facts and evidence brought on the record of the complaint, it is clearly made out that the opposite parties i.e. builders knew from the very beginning that they had 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 complainants to book the flat, due to which they have 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 complainants have to wage a long drawn and tedious legal battle. As such, the complainants were at loss of opportunities.

17. As discussed above, as per Clause-20 of the agreement dated 22.12.2013/03.01.2014, Ex.C-2, possession of the unit was to be delivered within 30 months with extended period of 6 months from the date of execution of the agreement; failing which the opposite parties were liable to pay penalty at the rate of 5/- per sq.ft. per month of the super area of the unit, as per Clause-28 of the agreement. It needs to be mentioned that the terms and conditions of the agreement are unilateral and one-sided in favour of the opposite parties, just to deprive the valuable rights of the complainants by the Consumer Complaint No.52 of 2020 opposite parties. Furthermore, as per Clause-1 of the agreement, the opposite parties charge interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the delayed payment of instalments, whereas for their default of delay in delivery in possession, they are offering only a meagre compensation of 5/- per sq.ft. per month, which does not commensurate with aforesaid rate of interest being charged by the opposite parties. Honble Supreme Court, in Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raghavan, Geetu Gidwani Verma & Anr. II(2019) CPJ 34, held that the Builder could not seek to bind flat purchaser with such one-sided contractual terms. The relevant para of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:- 6.7 A term of a contract will not be final and binding if it is shown that the flat purchasers had no option but to sign on the dotted line, on a contract framed by the builder. The contractual terms of the Agreement dated 8.5.2012 are ex facie one-sided, unfair, and unreasonable. The incorporation of such one-sided clauses in an agreement constitutes an unfair trade practice as per Section 2(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since it adopts unfair methods or practices for the purpose of selling the flats by the Builder. XX XX XX XX XX XX

9. We see no illegality in the impugned 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 .. Consumer Complaint No.52 of 2020

18. In these circumstances, the complainants are entitled to the possession of the unit, complete in all respects, with all the agreed facilities and Completion/Occupation Certificate issued by the competent authority; subject to payment of remaining sale consideration, without any interest and penalty. Besides this, the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation for delay in delivery of possession of the unit, in question, calculated at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount deposited by the complainants after the stipulated period i.e. from 03.01.2017 till delivery of possession of the unit, as observed above. Besides this, they are also liable to pay suitable litigation costs and other expenses to the complainants.

19. In view of our above discussion, the complaint is allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-

i) to deliver possession of the unit, complete in all respects, with all the agreed facilities and Completion/Occupation Certificate issued by the competent authority and to execute the Sale/Conveyance Deed in favour of the complainants; subject to payment of remaining sale consideration, without any interest and penalty; ii) to pay compensation for delay in delivery of possession of the unit calculated at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount deposited by the complainants after the stipulated period i.e. from 03.01.2017 till delivery of possession of the unit, as ordered above; and iii) to pay 40,000/- as litigation costs and other expenses. Consumer Complaint No.52 of 2020 iv) The balance sale consideration payable by the complainants shall be adjusted from above said liability of the opposite parties.

20. In case the opposite parties fail to comply with aforesaid directions, then in the alternative, they shall:

i) refund the amount deposited by the complainants i.e. 30,00,113/-, along with compensation for causing financial loss and depriving the complainants of the use of the said amount during the period the same remained with the opposite parties at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till realization, as per Rule 17 of PAPRA; and ii) to pay 40,000/- as litigation costs and other expenses. Consumer Complaint No.98 of 2020 Misc. Application No.652 of 2020 (Joint Complaint)

21. The complainants are joint allottees of the plot, in question. As such, the application is allowed. Main Case

22. Similarly, in this complaint, the complainants applied for allotment of a plot measuring 200 sq.yds. with the The Mohali Tenant Cooperative Housing Building Society Limited, Mohali, Punjab, in its project situated in Sector 112, SAS Nagar, Mohali, vide Application Form Ex.C-1, and deposited a sum of 13,00,000/-, vide receipts Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-6. Later on, the said project was taken over by the opposite parties and they duly acknowledged receipt of aforesaid amount, vide letter dated 26.07.2010 Ex.C-7 and receipt dated 12.04.2011 Ex.C-9. The complainants paid a total sum of 19,30,000/- Consumer Complaint No.52 of 2020 towards the price of the plot, in question, maintenance charges and development charges, vide receipts/cheques Ex.C-3 to 6, Ex.C-8, Ex.C-9, Ex.C-11, Ex.C-12 and Ex.C-14. Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), Ex.C-10, was executed between the complainants and the opposite parties on 10.05.2011. As per Clauses-

3 & 4 thereof, the opposite parties reserved a developed plot measuring about 200 sq.yds. at the rate of 6,500/- per sq.yds.(excluding development charges) in their proposed residential colony. It is also mentioned therein that total cost of the plot is 13,00,000/-, which is excluding the development charges. As per Clause 6 of MoU, it was agreed that process of allotment of plot would start only after proper sanction/permissions/licenses granted by the competent authorities. It was undertaken that the Plot Buyers Agreement would be executed between the parties later on. As per Clause-7 of MoU, if the future project of the opposite parties is abandoned or is not undertaken due to any unwanted or statutory objections or they are not in a position to reserve the developed plot, as referred above, within a period of 18 months, the complainants would be entitled to get refund of the entire amount deposited by them, along with simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum payable from the date of execution of the MoU or from the date of encashment of cheques as may be applicable. However, no interest shall be payable to the complainants, if the allotment of the plot has been made. However, no allotment letter/Plot Buyers Agreement was issued/executed. The opposite parties issued Clearance and Consumer Complaint No.52 of 2020 Possession Certificate dated 05.11.2014, Ex.C-13, vide which plot No.509, measuring 200 sq.yds. (approximately) was allotted to the complainants in Ext.-1 of RKM City, Sector 112, Mohali. It is mentioned in this Certificate that the complainants had cleared the dues of the Company. Paper possession of the said plot was delivered to them, vide Certificate dated 05.11.2014 Ex.C-15. However, the opposite parties have failed to obtain the necessary sanctions/approvals for setting up the said project, nor there is any development at the site. As such, legal physical possession of the plot was not delivered. Furthermore, the opposite parties failed to deliver possession of the plot within the stipulated period of 18 months from the date of execution of the MoU, as discussed above. The complainants came to know that one allottee, Sh. Mukesh Kumar, has obtained information from GMADA under RTI Act, vide letter dated 19.02.2016, Ex.C-17. Perusal of this letter shows that the opposite parties have not applied for grant of Completion Certificate for the said project. No revised layout plan of the project, in question, has been issued to them. Entire EDC have not been deposited by the opposite parties and only a sum of 169.57 lac has been deposited. It is also mentioned therein that possession of the plot can be delivered by the promoter, only after completing the developments works at site. Further, vide letter dated 22.03.2016, Ex.C-18, GMADA supplied information under RTI Act, stating that opposite party No.1 has not applied for issuance of layout plan with GMADA. As per letter dated 30.03.2016 issued by GMADA, Ex.C-19, the opposite parties have not Consumer Complaint No.52 of 2020 applied for renewing the license for developing the colony in Sector 112, Mohali; which was valid from 07.03.2012 to 06.03.2015. Perusal of Licence to Develop a Colony, Ex.C-20, shows that the opposite parties have not obtained permission from the office of Chief Engineer, GMADA for the disposal of treated water available from the Sewerage Treatment Plant before start of the work. The opposite parties have also not taken prior and necessary permission from the Punjab Pollution Control Board and Environment and Forest Department. NOC from the office of PSPCL has also not been obtained by the opposite parties. They also failed to obtain approval from the office of Central Ground Water Board (CGWB) before execution of the work related to rain harvesting structures for disposal of the water. The complainants so many times requested the opposite parties to deliver the actual, physical and legal possession of the plot, in question, but to no effect. Later on, the complainants came to know that opposite parties No.2 & 3 have been arrested, due to non-compliance of the orders passed by this Commission. As such, they were left with no option, but to seek refund of the deposited amount, along with interest, vide letter dated 15.01.2020 Ex.C-21. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainants sought similar relief, as prayed for in the Consumer Complaint No.52 of 2020.

23. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this Commission on 09.07.2020, but they failed to file written statement within the prescribed period of 45 days as per provisions of the Act Consumer Complaint No.52 of 2020 and, as such, their right to file written statement was closed, vide order dated 31.08.2020. In support of the averments of the complaint, the complainants filed their own affidavits, along with documents, as discussed above. Similar arguments, as raised in Consumer Complaint No.52 of 2020, have been raised in this case.

24. As per Clauses-3 & 4 of the MoU, Ex.C-10, the opposite parties agreed to reserve a developed plot measuring about 200 sq.yds. at the rate of 6,500/- per sq.yds.(excluding development charges) in their proposed residential colony. It is also mentioned therein that total cost of the plot is 13,00,000/-, which is excluding the development charges. However, the opposite parties failed to issue/execute the allotment letter/Plot Buyers Agreement with the complainants, despite receipt of entire sale price of 19,30,000/-, which included total sale price of plot i.e. 13,00,000/-, maintenance charges and EDC. Section 6 (1) of PAPRA is reproduced as under: 6.(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, a promoter who intends to construct or constructs a building of apartments, all or some of which are to be taken or are taken on ownership basis, or who intends to offer for sale plots in a colony, shall, before he accepts any sum of money as advance payment or deposit, which shall not be more than twenty five percent of the sale price, enter into a written agreement for sale with each of such persons who are to take or have taken such apartments, or plots, as the case may be, and the agreement shall be in the prescribed with together with prescribed documents and shall be registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act no. 16 of 1908). Provided that, if only a refundable application fee is collected from the applicant before draw of lots for allotment, such agreement will be required only after such draw of lots. Consumer Complaint No.52 of 2020

25. Perusal of above reproduced Section 6 (1) of PAPRA shows that before accepting 25% of the sale price, the builder/developer shall enter into a written agreement for sale of the property with the buyer. However, the opposite parties failed to enter into any agreement or issue allotment letter for sale of the plot, in question, with the complainants, despite receipt of entire sale price of the plot. Thus, they committed violation of Section 6 (1) of PAPRA. Since there is no allotment letter/agreement executed between the opposite parties and complainants, so no specific terms and conditions of allotment have come on record. However, possession of the plot was not delivered within 18 months from the date of issuance of MoU dated 10.05.2011, Ex.C-10, i.e. up to 10.11.2012, as per Clause-7 of MoU. Only paper possession of the plot, in question, was delivered, vide Certificate dated 05.11.2014, Ex.C-15. In view of the evidence discussed above, the project of the opposite parties is lacking in many aspects, such as development, obtaining necessary permissions/sanctions etc. Since no defence of the opposite parties has come on record, so all the averments of the complaint and evidence led by the complainant stand admitted/unrebutted. Although the complainants had sought refund of the amount deposited by them, along with interest, vide letter dated 15.01.2020, Ex.C-21, yet the same does not bar the complainants from seeking alternative reliefs, as prayed for in the complaint. So far as the possession delivered, vide Certificate dated 05.11.2014 Ex.C-15 is concerned, it is clearly mentioned therein that only paper possession was delivered and not Consumer Complaint No.52 of 2020 actual and physical possession. Moreover, since there is no evidence on record from the side of the opposite parties to show any development at the site and in view of the evidence discussed above, the actual, legal and physical possession of the plot, in question, has not been delivered.

26. So far as condition of 10% simple interest, as provided in Clause-7 of the MoU, is concerned, it needs to be mentioned that in view of the huge delay of eight years in delivery of possession of the unit and in view of Rule 17 of PAPRA, that condition of the MoU can be discarded and it is held that the complainants are entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum for delay in delivery of possession of the unit, or on the amount to be refunded.

27. In view of my above discussion as well as the reasons and discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.52 of 2020, this complaint is allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:

i) to deliver actual and physical and legal possession of the plot, complete in all respects, with all the agreed facilities and to execute the Sale/Conveyance Deed in favour of the complainants; ii) to pay compensation for delay in delivery of possession of the unit calculated at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount deposited by the complainants after the stipulated period i.e. from 10.11.2012 till delivery of possession of the plot, as ordered above; and iii) to pay 30,000/- as litigation costs and other expenses. Consumer Complaint No.52 of 2020

28. In case the opposite parties fail to comply with aforesaid directions, then in the alternative, they shall:

i) refund the amount deposited by the complainants i.e. 19,30,000/-, along with compensation for causing financial loss and depriving the complainants of the use of the said amount during the period the same remained with the opposite parties at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till realization, as per Rule 17 of PAPRA; and ii) to pay 30,000/- as litigation costs and other expenses. Consumer Complaint No.109 of 2020

29. In this case, Sh. Parmod Kumar, being KARTA of HUF, is having two sons namely Parteek Jain and Pulkit Jain, who are not having any house in their name anywhere in India. The complainant applied for allotment of a residential plot measuring 250 sq.yds. for his son, Parteek Jain, who is aged 26 years and is working at Sri Muktsar Sahib. The complainant deposited 5,00,000/-, vide receipt dated 19.11.2009, Ex.C-1. Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), Ex.C-2, was executed between the parties on 19.11.2009. As per Clause-1 of the MoU, the complainant agreed to contribute total funds amounting to 25,00,000/- within 12 months to the opposite parties for acquisition/procurement of land of said plot. The development charges would be extra payable by the complainant. However, the complainant deposited a total sum of 30,30,000/-, vide receipts Ex.C-1, Ex.C-3 (colly.) to Ex.C-5 (colly.), Ex.C-6, Ex.C-7 and Ex.C-10. The opposite parties also issued No Due Certificate dated 28.11.2013 Ex.C-8, Consumer Complaint No.52 of 2020 stating that full land cost of the plot, along with development charges was paid by the complainant. It is also mentioned therein that Municipal Taxes, non-construction fee, maintenance fee, Service Tax and any other charges, if any, levied by the Government/GMADA/ Municipal Authorities would be payable, as and when demanded. It is also mentioned that the No Due Certificate was issued subject to encashment of cheque No.655614 dated 01.02.2014 for 7,50,000/- and cheque No.655612 dated 05.12.2013 for 5,00,000/-. As per Clause-7 of the MoU, if the future project of the opposite parties is abandoned or is not undertaken due to any unwanted or statutory objections or they are not in a position to reserve the developed plot, as referred above, within a period of 12 months, the complainant would be entitled to get refund of the entire amount deposited by him, along with simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum payable from the date of execution of the MoU or from the date of encashment of cheques, as may be applicable. However, no interest shall be payable to the complainant, if the allotment of the plot has been made. The possession of the plot was not delivered within the stipulated period, nor any allotment letter/Plot Buyers Agreement was issued/executed despite receipt of entire sale price of the plot along with development charges; which amounts to violation of Section 6 (1) of PAPRA. However, vide Clearance and Possession Certificate dated 05.11.2014, Ex.C-9, plot No.449, measuring 250 sq.yds. (approximately) was allotted to the complainant in Ext.-1 by RKM Housing Ltd. in Sector 112, Mohali. It is mentioned in this Certificate Consumer Complaint No.52 of 2020 that the complainant had cleared the dues of the Company. Paper possession of the said plot was delivered to him, vide Certificate dated 05.11.2014 Ex.C-11. However, the opposite parties have failed to obtain the necessary sanctions/approvals for setting up the said project, nor there is any development at the site. As such, legal physical possession of the plot was not delivered. Same documents, as discussed in Consumer Complaint No.98 of 2020, regarding non- obtaining of necessary sanctions by the opposite parties have been produced in this complaint as Ex.C-12 to Ex.C-16. Later on, the complainant came to know that opposite parties No.2 & 3 have been arrested, due to non-compliance of the orders passed this Commission. As such, the complainant was left with no option, but to seek refund of the deposited amount, along with interest, vide letter dated 15.01.2020 Ex.C-17. Other averments are similar to that of Consumer Complaint No.98 of 2020/Consumer Complaint No.52 of 2020 and similar relief has been sought.

30. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this Commission on 09.07.2020, but they failed file to written statement within the prescribed period of 45 days as per provisions of the Act and, as such, their right to file written statement was closed, vide order dated 31.08.2020. In support of the averments of the complaint, the complainant filed his own affidavits, along with documents, as discussed above. Similar arguments, as raised in Consumer Complaint No.52 of 2020, have been raised in this case. Consumer Complaint No.52 of 2020

31. In view of the evidence discussed above, the project of the opposite parties is lacking in many aspects, such as development, obtaining necessary permissions/sanctions etc. Since no defence of the opposite parties has come on record, so all the averments of the complaint and evidence led by the complainant stand admitted/unrebutted. Although the complainant sought refund of the amount deposited by them, along with interest, vide letter dated 15.01.2020, Ex.C-17, yet the same does not bar him from seeking alternative reliefs, as prayed for in the complaint. So far as the possession delivered, vide Certificate dated 05.11.2014, Ex.C-11, is concerned, it is clearly mentioned therein that only paper possession was delivered and not actual and physical possession. Moreover, since there is no evidence on record from the side of the opposite parties to show any development at the site and in view of the evidence discussed above, the actual, legal and physical possession of the plot, in question, has not been delivered.

32. In view of my above discussion as well as the reasons and discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.52 of 2020 and Consumer Complaint No.98 of 2020, this complaint is allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:

i) to deliver actual and physical and legal possession of the plot, in question, complete in all respects, with all the agreed facilities and to execute the Sale/Conveyance Deed in favour of the complainant; Consumer Complaint No.52 of 2020 ii) to pay compensation for delay in delivery of possession of the unit calculated at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount deposited by the complainant after the stipulated period i.e. from 18.11.2010 till delivery of possession of the plot, as ordered above; and iii) to pay 40,000/- as litigation costs and other expenses.

33. In case the opposite parties fail to comply with aforesaid directions, then in the alternative, they shall:

i) refund the amount deposited by the complainant i.e. 30,30,000/-, 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 the opposite parties at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till realization, as per Rule 17 of PAPRA; and ii) to pay 40,000/- as litigation costs and other expenses. Consumer Complaint No.110 of 2020

34. In this case, Sh. Parmod Kumar, being KARTA of HUF, is having two sons namely Parteek Jain and Pulkit Jain, who are not having any house in their name anywhere in India. The complainant applied for allotment of a residential plot measuring 200 sq.yds. for his son, Pulkit Jain (aged 31 years) and his family members and deposited 4,00,000/-, vide receipt dated 19.11.2009, Ex.C-1. Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), Ex.C-2, was executed between the parties on 19.11.2009. As per Clause-1 of the MoU, the complainant agreed to contribute total funds amounting to Consumer Complaint No.52 of 2020 20,00,000/- within 12 months to the opposite parties for acquisition/procurement of land of said plot. The development charges would be extra payable by the complainant. As per Clause-7 of the MoU, if the future project of the opposite parties is abandoned or is not undertaken due to any unwanted or statutory objections or they are not in a position to reserve the developed plot, as referred above, within a period of 12 months, the complainant would be entitled to get refund of the entire amount deposited by him, along with simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum payable from the date of execution of the MoU or from the date of encashment of cheques, as may be applicable. However, no interest shall be payable to the complainant, if the allotment of the plot has been made. The possession of the plot was not delivered within the stipulated period, nor any allotment letter/Plot Buyers Agreement was issued/executed despite receipt of entire sale price of the plot along with development charges; which amounts to violation of Section 6 (1) of PAPRA. However, vide Clearance and Possession Certificate dated 05.11.2014, Ex.C-7, vide which plot No.634, measuring 200 sq.yds. (approximately) was allotted to the complainant in Ext.-1 by RKM Housing Ltd. in Sector 112, Mohali. It is mentioned in this Certificate that the complainant had cleared the dues of the Company. Paper possession of the said plot was delivered to him, vide Certificate dated 05.11.2014 Ex.C-9. However, the opposite parties have failed to obtain the necessary sanctions/approvals for setting up the said project, nor there is any development at the site. As such, legal physical Consumer Complaint No.52 of 2020 possession of the plot was not delivered. Same documents, as discussed in Consumer Complaint No.98 of 2020, regarding non- obtaining of necessary sanctions by the opposite parties have been produced in this complaint as Ex.C-10 to Ex.C-14. Later on, the complainant came to know that opposite parties No.2 & 3 have been arrested, due to non-compliance of the orders passed this Commission. As such, the complainant was left with no option, but to seek refund of the deposited amount, along with interest, vide letter dated 15.01.2020 Ex.C-15. Other averments are similar to that of Consumer Complaint No.98 of 2020/Consumer Complaint No.52 of 2020 and similar relief has been sought.

35. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this Commission on 09.07.2020, but they failed file to written statement within the prescribed period of 45 days as per provisions of the Act and, as such, their right to file written statement was closed, vide order dated 31.08.2020. In support of the averments of the complaint, the complainant filed his own affidavits, along with documents, as discussed above. Similar arguments, as raised in Consumer Complaint No.52 of 2020, have been raised in this case.

36. The complainant has alleged that he deposited a total sum of 24,30,000/- with the opposite parties towards the price of the plot, in question. However, perusal of receipts Ex.C-1, Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-8 shows that a sum of 23,30,000/- only was deposited towards the cost of the plot, maintenance charges etc. The complainant has failed to produce the receipt/receipt number of Consumer Complaint No.52 of 2020 alleged payment of 1,00,000/- made on 06.03.2012, as mentioned in Para-7 of the complaint. In the absence of any authentic proof qua payment of that amount, it cannot be proved that the said amount was paid by the complainant.

37. In view of the evidence discussed above, the project of the opposite parties is lacking in many aspects, such as development, obtaining necessary permissions/sanctions etc. Since no defence of the opposite parties has come on record, so all the averments of the complaint and evidence led by the complainant stand admitted/unrebutted. Although the complainant sought refund of the amount deposited by them, along with interest, vide letter dated 15.01.2020, Ex.C-15, yet the same does not bar him from seeking alternative reliefs, as prayed for in the complaint. So far as the possession delivered, vide Certificate dated 05.11.2014, Ex.C-9, is concerned, it is clearly mentioned therein that only paper possession was delivered and not actual and physical possession. Moreover, since there is no evidence on record from the side of the opposite parties to show any development at the site and in view of the evidence discussed above, the actual, legal and physical possession of the plot, in question, has not been delivered.

38. In view of my above discussion as well as the reasons and discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.52 of 2020 and Consumer Complaint No.98 of 2020, this complaint is allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties: Consumer Complaint No.52 of 2020

i) to deliver actual and physical and legal possession of the plot, complete in all respects, with all the agreed facilities and to execute the Sale/Conveyance Deed in favour of the complainant; ii) to pay compensation for delay in delivery of possession of the unit calculated at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount deposited by the complainant, i.e. 23,30,000/-, after the stipulated period i.e. from 18.11.2010 till delivery of possession of the plot, as ordered above; and iii) to pay 30,000/- as litigation costs and other expenses.

39. In case the opposite parties fail to comply with aforesaid directions, then in the alternative, they shall:

i) refund the amount deposited by the complainant i.e. 23,30,000/-, 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 the opposite parties at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till realization, as per Rule 17 of PAPRA; and ii) to pay 30,000/- as litigation costs and other expenses.

40. The compliance of this order shall be made by the opposite parties within a period of 60 days of the receipt of certified copy of the order. (JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT October 07, 2020. (Gurmeet S)