MRS. PALLAVI TYAGI v. HERO HOMES

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

Consumer Complaint No.21 of 2024 Date of institution: 24.06.2024 Reserved On : 17.09.2025 Date of decision : 14.10.2025

1. Mrs. Pallavi Tyagi W/o Sh. Anshuman Bhuchar S/o Sh. Ajay Bhuchar, aged about 43 years, R/o Tower-2, Flat No.2202, Hero Homes, Sector-88, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) Punjab.

2. Sh. Anshuman Bhuchar S/o Sh. Ajay Bhuchar, aged about 43 years, R/o Tower-2, Flat No.2202, Hero Homes, Sector-88, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) Punjab.

….Complainants

Versus

1. Hero Homes, Plot No.1, Sector-88, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Mohali (Site Office).

2. Hero Realty Private Ltd., Registered Office at : 264, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, South Delhi, New Delhi, 110020, through the CEO.

Also at : E-2, Qutab Hotel Complex, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi (110016).

3. Sunil Kant Munjal (Director), 264, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase- III, New Delhi (Corporate Office).

4. Amit Kumar Aggarwal (Director), 264, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, New Delhi (Corporate Office).

All OPs' Email ID:customercare@herorealty.in

.…Opposite Parties

Consumer Complaint under Section 47 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Quorum:-

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, Member

1

2

1. Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

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

3. Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No

Present:

For the Complainants : Mr. Saurabh Gautam, Advocate For OP No.1 : None

For OPs No.2-4 : Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate

JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT

This order of ours shall dispose off the total 13 (Thirteen) Consumer Complaints i.e. Consumer Complaint No.21 of 2024, Consumer Complaint No. 22 of 2024, Consumer Complaint No.23 of 2024, Consumer Complaint No.24 of 2024, Consumer Complaint No.25 of 2024, Consumer Complaint No.26 of 2024, Consumer Complaint No.27 of 2024, Consumer Complaint No.28 of 2024, Consumer Complaint No.29 of 2024, Consumer Complaint No.30 of 2024, Consumer Complaint No.31 of 2024, Consumer Complaint No.32 of 2024, and Consumer Complaint No.33 of 2024, as the common questions of law and facts are involved therein. However, the facts are being extracted from Consumer Complaint No.21 of 2024

titled as "Mrs. Pallavi Tyagi & another Vs. Hero Homes & Others".

Consumer Complaint No.21 of 2024

2. The Complainants Mrs. Pallavi Tyagi and another have approached this Commission by way of filing the present Complaint under Section 47 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter be

3

referred as 'the Act') mentioning therein that the Complainants i.e. the husband and wife had purchased residential Flat bearing No.T- 02/2202, i.e. 3 BHK+ST+SR in the project of the OPs, i.e. 'Hero Homes', situated at Plot No.1, Sector-88, Mohali. The super built-up area of the Flat was 1950 square feet with two basement car parking and the total price of the Flat was stated to be of Rs.94,14,400/- between the parties inclusive of appliable IFMS, with two car parking, club membership and pro rata share in the common areas with GST discount but not including, the stamp charges & registration fee which were extra. The OPs had issued allotment letter dated 22.02.2021 (Ex.C-2) to the Complainants. A Builder Buyer's Agreement (Ex.C-3) was executed between the parties on 04.03.2021 and as per Clause

7.1 of the Agreement, the OPs had promised to hand over the possession of the Flat on 31.12.2021. As per Clause 5 of the Agreement, the time was of essence for promoter as well as Allottee. The Complainants had chosen Possession linked payment plan. The Complainants had availed Home Loan from Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited to make payment of the sale price to the OPs. A 'Tripartite Agreement' (Ex.C-4) was also executed on 19.08.2021 between the Complainants, OP No.2 and HDFC. The Complainants had paid all the instalments to the OPs as demanded by them. The OPs had not delivered the possession of the Flat on committed dated, i.e. 31.12.2021 as the project of the OPs was not complete. The OPs had sent email dated 30.03.2023 (Ex.C-6) informing the Complainants that the interest of Rs.6,21,708/- would be

4

credited into the account of the Complainant. The OPs had offered the rate of interest @ 10.40% as agreed between the parties but they had cleverly reduced the default period and had wrongly calculated the same as 11.41 months, whereas there was delay of 20.10 months, i.e. for the period w.e.f. 31.12.2021 to 04.09.2023 as per Clause 9.1 and

9.2 of the Agreement. The OPs had issued offer of possession letter on 23.08.2023 whereas the OPs had debited the last installment on 10.08.2023, which was to be paid on handing over of the actual physical possession and it was only to be handed over after issuance of Occupation Certificate, which was issued on 04.09.2023. Alleging

"deficiency in service" and "unfair trade practice" on the part of the OPs, the Complainants have prayed for issuance of following directions to the OPs :-

i) That the OPs be directed to give delay compensation on the deposited amount, at the admitted prescribed rate of interest i.e. 10.40% per annum, for causing delay in handing over of the possession, for the period commencing from the committed date of possession i.e. 31.12.2021 to the date of grant of Occupation Certificate i.e. 04.09.2023; and / or

ii) That the OP's be directed to pay an interest at the prescribed and the agreed rate of interest i.e. 10.40% per annum, on the advance collection of the installment, and to release to the Complainants the balance amount of early

5

payment interest amounting to Rs.1,52,275/- as calculated in para 38 above ; and / or

iii) That further the opposite parties may also be directed to pay the future and the pendent lite interest @ 18% per annum ; and / or

iv) That the OPs be directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment, torture, loss of opportunity and physical harassment caused to the Complainants on account of deficiency in services, malpractices and unfair trade practices, etc. ; and / or

v) Opposite Parties be directed to pay Rs.35,000 towards litigation / Counsel fee ; and / or

vi) Any other relief this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit, be awarded in favour of the Complainants and against the Opposite Parties.

3. Upon issuance of notices, the OPs No.2-4 had appeared through Counsel and have also filed joint written reply, wherein certain preliminary objections have been raised mentioning therein that the Complaint was not maintainable as the Complainants do not fall under the definition of 'consumer' as defined under the Act. There is no

'deficiency in service' and 'unfair trade practice' on the part of the OPs and the Complainants have no cause of action to file the Complaint. This Commission has no pecuniary and territorial

6

jurisdiction to entertain and decide the Complaint. Office of the OPs was situated in Delhi. The compensation for delay in delivery of possession was paid/adjusted to the Complainants as per the provisions of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA). It has further been mentioned that the possession of Flat had already been delivered to the Complainants and the Conveyance Deed was also executed and now no claim was maintainable. All the agreed amenities had been provided in the project. The delay in delivery of the possession was due to 'force majeure' circumstances i.e. the restraints of COVID-19 etc. The OP No.2 had applied for the

Completion/Occupation Certificate to the appropriate Authority through online Application dated 14.12.2022. Thereafter, OP No.2 had applied for Completion/Occupation Certificate through physical mode vide Application dated 19.01.2023 (Ex.R-4). The Complainant had wrongly mentioned that FIR NOC was received on 25.04.2023 whereas OP No.2 had received Fire NOC well within time, i.e. on 13.05.2022 (Ex.R-

12) which was valid upto 12.05.2023. Thereafter, OP No.2 had applied for its renewal and it was renewed. The Complainants were in physical possession of Apartment and OPs had executed Conveyance/Sale Deed in their favour and delay penalty of Rs.6,21,708/- was duly paid/adjusted. Further, it has been mentioned that the judgment relied upon by the Complainants had been stayed by the Hon'ble National Commission in F.A. No.487 of 2024 titled as Hero Realty Private Limited Vs. Mrs. Nilanjana Mukhopadhyay, vide order dated 15.07.2024 (Ex.R-13). The Complainant has wrongly and

7

mischievously claimed 10.40% interest without any basis. That the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble National Commission had awarded interest @6% in cases of delay in handing over of possession and in case of refund the interest @9% was awarded. It has further been mentioned that the STP was installed at the temporary place but it was not illegal and was installed just for facilitation of all the allottees. The GMADA had not fulfilled its promise to provide the STP and as such the OPs had constructed the temporary STP for the convenience of the allottees of the project. The OPs had also planned to install the STP in Phase-2 and thereafter, the temporary STP would be dismantled. OPs No.3 & 4 have been wrongly impleaded as party as they have no role in this case. The other averments as made in the Complaint have been denied and it has been prayed that the Complaint be dismissed with costs.

4. The Complainants have also filed the Rejoinder, wherein the averments as made in the Complaint have been reiterated and the stand of the OPs as taken in their reply has been controverted/denied.

5. In order to prove their case, the Complainants have filed their affidavits along with the copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-17. The OPs have filed the affidavit of Mr. Ravi Prakash, Authorized Representative of the OPs along with the copies of documents Annexures R-1 to R-17 (colly.).

6. Mr. Abhinav Kansal, learned Counsel for the Complainants

has submitted that the OPs have failed to deliver the possession of the

8

Flat in question within the stipulated period despite receipt of entire sale consideration amount from the Complainants. They had utilized the amount so deposited by the Complainants for their own purpose and without bothering about the Completion of the project within the agreed period. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the offer of possession was made after a considerable delay without explaining any reason. The OPs had paid the compensation of ₹6,21,708/- towards delay in delivery of possession, whereas the actual compensation on that account was much more. The Partial Completion Certificate (Annexure R-5) produced by the OPs pertains to Tower-8, whereas the Flat of the Complainants is situated in Tower-

7. As per Clause 7.1 of the Agreement, the OPs were required to deliver the possession of the Flat on 13.12.2021. Learned Counsel has also submitted that on inquiry from the officials of GMADA, it was informed that the OPs had submitted the Application for Completion Certificate/Occupation Certificate on 14.12.2021. Thereafter, the OPs had withdrawn the same and had filed another Application for grant of partial Completion Certificate on 19.01.2023 with requisite documents. As per information received under RTI Act, OPs had applied for Occupation Certificate on 11.08.2023 and the same was granted to the OPs on 04.09.2023. The possession was offered to the Complainants vide letter dated 23.08.2023 and conveyance deed was executed on 03.10.2023. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the OPs are not competent to grant extension of 6 months, as they had not sought any benefit in this regard from the competent Authority. Due to late

9

delivery of possession, the Complainants had to stay in the rented accommodation. Learned Counsel has also relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions:

i) Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243 ;

ii) Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. & another Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly & others (1986) 3 SCC 156

iii) Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited Vs. Gouvindan Raghavan Civil Appeal No.12238

7. Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, learned Counsel for the OPs has submitted that the possession of the Flat in question had already been delivered to the Complainants on 23.08.2023 on Completion of all amenities as well as on receipt of Occupation Certificate and Conveyance Deed was also executed on 03.10.2023 in favour of the Complainants and they had not raised any protest at that time. The possession of the Flat could not be delivered to the Complainants within the agreed period due to force majeure circumstances such as outbreak of the pandemic of COVID-19 and also due to orders passed by various Courts. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs had also issued the advisory for extension of registration of Real Estate projects due to force majeure circumstances. The OPs had paid/adjusted an amount of ₹6,21,708/- due to delay in delivery of possession before the execution of the Conveyance Deed and further claim of the Complainants are not tenable. After obtaining the possession of the Flat satisfactorily without any protest, the Complainants are not entitled for claim regarding any deficiency or delay etc.. Further, as per Clause 7.1 of the Agreement,

10

the date of submission of the Application with the competent authority for obtaining the Completion/Occupancy Certificate for the specific Tower was reckoned as the date of Completion of the project. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the GMADA had not fulfilled its promise to provide the STP and as such the OPs had constructed the temporary STP for the convenience of the allottees of the project. Learned Counsel has further submitted that as per the settled law, the interest is payable till the date of offer of the possession only. In a number of judgments, the interest at the rate of 6% only has been awarded for delay in handing over the possession. At the end, learned Counsel has submitted that there is no 'deficiency in service' on the part of the OPs and the Complaint be dismissed. Learned Counsel has also relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions:

i. Ramesh Kumar Vs. Omaxe (10.05.2023) and

Raman Kumar Vs. Omaxe (07.08.2024);

ii. DLF Home Developers Ltd. (Earlier known as DLF Universal Ltd.) & Anr. v. Capital Greens Flat Buyers Association Etc. Civil Appeal No.3864- 3889 of 2020 decided on 14.12.2020 (SC);

iii. Sgs India Ltd. (S) v. Dolphin International Ltd. (S). No.5759 of 2009 (SC);

iv. DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited Vs. D.S. Dhanda (2022 SCC Online NCDRC 86);

v. DLF Universal Ltd. Vs. Ekta Seth (2020 SCC Online SC 37)

vi. Pioneer Urban Land Vs. Govindan Raghavan, Civil Appeal No.12238 of 2018 (SC)

8. We have heard the oral arguments raised by learned Counsel for the parties. We have also carefully gone through the averments made in the Complaint, replies thereof, written

11

arguments submitted on behalf of both the parties and other documents available on the file.

9. The Complainants have also filed MA No.794 of 2024 for seeking permission to file the Complaint jointly on the ground that the Flat in dispute was allotted in their joint names.

10. For the reasons recorded in the Application, the same is allowed the Complainants are permitted to file the Complaint in their joint names.

11. The OPs have also raised a preliminary objection in their written reply that the Complainants do not fall under the definition of

'Consumer', as defined under the Act. The word 'Consumer' has been defined under Section 2(8) of the Act, which is reproduced as under:

"(7) "consumer" means any person who—

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(ii) hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause,—

(a) the expression "commercial purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment;

(b) the expressions "buys any goods" and "hires or avails any services" includes offline or online transactions through electronic

12

means or by teleshopping or direct selling or multi-level marketing."

12. On perusal of the definition of 'Consumer' as reproduced above, it is apparent that the 'Consumer' means any person, who buys any goods or hires/avails any service for consideration paid or promised. In the present case, the Complainants had availed/hired the services of the OPs by booking/purchasing the Flat in dispute and had paid the entire sale consideration to the OPs. It is settled proposition of law that the housing construction and building activities by the builders, where the Consumers seek allotment/possession etc., fall under the definition of 'service'. In the case of Narne Construction P. Ltd. etc. v. Union of India & Ors. AIR 2012 SC 2369, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that housing construction and building activities come under the definition of "service", as defined under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now Section 2(42) of the Act of 2019). Accordingly, the Complainants fall under the definition of 'Consumer', as defined under section 2(7) of the Act as they have hired the 'service' of the OPs under section 2(42) of the Act for consideration.

13. Further, an objection has also been raised by the OPs that this Commission has no pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the present Complaint. Section 47 (4) of the Act is relevant in the present context, which is reproduced as under:

""47. Jurisdiction of the State Commission.-

(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction—

(a) to entertain—

13

(i) Complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration, exceeds rupees one crore, but does not exceed rupees ten crore:

Provided that where the Central Government deems it necessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value, as it deems fit;

(ii) Complaints against unfair contracts, where the value of goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed ten crore rupees;

(iii) appeals against the orders of any District Commission within the State; and

(b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any District Commission within the State, where it appears to the State Commission that such District Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

(2) The jurisdiction, powers and authority of the State Commission may be exercised by Benches thereof, and a Bench may be constituted by the President with one or more members as the President may deem fit:

Provided that the senior-most member shall preside over the Bench.

(3) Where the members of a Bench differ in opinion on any point, the points shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority, if there is a majority, but if the members are equally divided, they shall state the point or points on which they differ, and make a reference to the President who shall either hear the point or points himself or refer the case for hearing on such point or points by one or more of the other members and such point or points shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority of the members who have heard the case, including those who first heard it:

Provided that the President or the other members, as the case may be, shall give opinion on the point or points so referred within a period of one month from the date of such reference.

(4) A Complaint shall be instituted in a State Commission within the limits of whose jurisdiction,—

(a) the opposite party or each of the OPs, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the Complaint, ordinarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or

(b) any of the OPs, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the Complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, provided in such case, the permission of the State Commission is given; or

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises; or

(d) the Complainant resides or personally works for gain."

14. The project of the OPs is situated in Sector-88, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali), Punjab, wherein the Complainants had been allotted the Flat in dispute and as such the cause of action had arisen to file the Complaint before this Commission in view of provisions of Section 47(4) (c) of the Act.

15. As far as the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction is concerned, it

14

is relevant to mention that earlier under section 47(1)(i) of the Act as reproduced above, the State Commission was having the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain Complaint with the value of goods or services paid as consideration exceeding Rupees One Crore but did not exceed Rupees Ten Crore. Later on, vide Notification dated 30.12.2021, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission, State Commission and National Commission was revised. As per Section-4 of said Notification, Section 47(1) (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been amended, which reads as under:

"4. Jurisdiction of the State Commission:-Subject to the other provisions of the Act and in pursuance of proviso to sub- clause (i) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 47, the State Commission shall be jurisdiction to entertain Complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration

exceeds fifty lakh but does not exceed two crore rupees."

16. In the present case, the amount so paid by the Complainants is more than ₹50 lac and below ₹2 Crore and as such the Complaint is also within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.

17. Now, coming to the merits of the case, admittedly 3 BHK Flat bearing No.T-02/2202, 22^ndFloor in Tower-02 ("Flat"), in the said project of the OPs was allotted to the Complainants vide Allotment Letter dated 19.09.2018 (Ex.C-1). The total price of the said Flat was ₹94,14,400/- inclusive of other charges as mentioned in the facts above. An Agreement for Sale (in short, the 'Agreement') was executed between the parties on 04.03.2021. The Complainants had availed Home Loan from HDFC Bank to pay the sale price to the OPs,

15

for which a 'Tripartite Agreement' (Ex.C-4) was also executed on 19.08.2021. The Complainants had paid all the instalments to the OPs as per the payment plan without any delay and this fact has also not been denied/disputed by the OPs also.

18. As per Clause 7.1 of the Agreement for Sale, the OPs had promised to hand over the possession of the Flat on 31.12.2021. Admittedly, due to spread of pandemic of COVID-19, the concerned authorities had given 6 months' extension to the builders and as such the date of possession was also extended up to 30.06.2022. However, the OPs had failed to deliver the possession of the Flat even after the extended period. The OPs had paid the compensation of ₹6,21,708/- for delay in delivery of possession as per Email dated 02.05.2022 (Ex.C-6). The offer of possession was given to the Complainants vide letter dated 10.08.2023 (Ex.C-7) i.e. after a delay of more than 13 months from the extended date of June, 2022.

19. The stand of OPs is that they had moved the online Application for grant of Completion/Occupancy Certificate of the concerned Tower with the competent authority on 14.12.2022 and thereafter OPs had moved physical Application dated 19.01.2023. As per Clause 7.1 of the Agreement, the date of submission of the Application with the competent authority for obtaining the Completion/Occupancy Certificate for the specific Tower was to be reckoned as the date of Completion of the project and the delay

16

compensation was to be paid up to that date only. The relevant portion of Clause 7.1 of the Agreement (Ex.C-3) is reproduced as under:

"……………………………………………………………. For the purposes of this Clause/Agreement, the date of submission of the Application with the competent authority for obtaining Completion/occupancy/part-occupancy Certificate in respect of the Building, in which the Apartment is comprised, shall be reckoned as the date of Completion of the development/possession of the Tower/Apartment and the Promoter shall be deemed to have fulfilled its responsibility qua the Completion of development and possession as mentioned in this Agreement. No claim by way of damages/compensation shall lie against the Promoter in case of delay in handing over possession on account of any of the said reasons and the Promoter shall be entitled to extension of time for the period the authorities take for providing the occupancy/part-occupancy/Completion Certificate."

20. The competent Authority had issued partial Completion Certificate vide letter dated 10.08.2023 (Annexure R-6) regarding Tower No.T-2 with basement at Group Housing site No.1, 'Hero Homes' Sector-88, SAS Nagar. Therefore, the OPs are liable to pay compensation for causing delay in delivery of possession from the extended date i.e. 30.06.2022 till the offer/delivery of possession i.e. 10.08.2023 and not till the submission of the Application for grant of Partial Completion Certificate, which otherwise was relating to some other Tower.

21. As per the version of the OPs, out of the total sale consideration of the Flat, some amount was paid by the Complainants towards GST and as such the Complainants are not entitled to interest on the said amount paid as GST. However, the fact remains that the possession of the Flat was not delivered even after extended period and it was delivered after a considerable delay of 14 months

17

therefrom. The Complainants had been deprived of the use and comforts of the Flat for the delayed period. The OPs have not given any cogent and convincing explanation as to why the possession was delayed even after the extended period. The OPs could have made efforts to deliver the possession of the Flat within the agreed/extended period but no sincere efforts were made and as such they are liable to suffer for the same. The risks on the GST amount paid by the homebuyers are to be borne by the builders/developers and not by the homebuyers, who had taken loans for purchasing the dwelling units at heavy rates of interest. Therefore, OPs are liable to pay interest on the entire deposited amount by the Complainants with them till the date of offer/delivery of possession. As per the version of the OPs, OP No.2 had received Fire NOC well within time, i.e. on 13.05.2022 (Ex.R-12) valid upto 12.05.2023. Thereafter, OP No.2 had applied for its renewal and the same was renewed. The Complainants have failed to rebut documents Ex.R-12 on the record.

22. Now, it is to be determined as to what rate of interest is to be awarded. The OPs have relied upon the judgment/order passed by the Hon'ble National Commission of case Sushma Buildtech Ltd. v. Jagsukhbir Kaur & Ors. FA No.468 of 2020 decided on 06.10.2020 (NC), wherein 6% interest was awarded for delay in delivery of possession. However, in the later judgment passed by the Hon'ble National Commission in case titled as Basanta Kumar Nandy & Ors. V. Dreamz Infra India Ltd. CC No.2749 of 2017 decided on 27.06.2022 has awarded interest @ 9% per annum on the amount so

18

deposited for delay in delivery of possession.

23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhishek Khanna (supra) while keeping in view the situation of COVID-19 had awarded 9% interest on the refundable amount. The relevant portion of said judgment is reproduced as under:

"We are cognizant of the prevailing market conditions as a result of Covid-19 Pandemic, which have greatly impacted the construction industry.

In these circumstances, it is necessary to balance the competing interest of both parties. We think it would be in the interests of justice and fairplay that the amounts deposited by the Apartment Buyers is refunded with Interest @ 9% S.I. per annum from 27.11.2018 till the date of payment of the entire amount."

24. In view of the law as laid down in the above judgments, we deem it appropriate to award interest @ 9% on the entire deposited amount by the Complainant on account of delay in delivery of possession of the Flat in dispute w.e.f. extended date i.e. 30.06.2022 till the date of physical delivery of possession i.e. 23.08.2023.

25. Another issue raised by the Complainants is regarding the installation of the Sewerage Treatment Plant (STP) at an unauthorized location. The stand of the OPs is that GMADA had not fulfilled its promise to provide the STP and as such the OPs had to construct the temporary STP for the convenience of the allottees of the project. The OPs had also planned to install the STP in Phase-2 and thereafter, the temporary STP would be/was to be dismantled. Learned Counsel for OPs has also drawn our attention to the Letter of Allotment dated 03.08.2015 (Annexure R-15) issued by GMADA, S.A.S. Nagar to the OPs, vide which the land under the project in dispute site was allotted

19

to the OPs with certain terms and conditions. Clause 5 (xi) of said letter is relevant in the present context, which is reproduced as under:

"xi) GMADA shall provide domestic water connection and the tertiary treated effluent to the allottee for use in flushing & gardening purposes. The allottee shall ensure the installation of Dual Piping System in the apartments for this purpose subject to inspection by JE before issuance of Occupation Certificate."

26. The OPs have also produced on record the copies of letters/reminders Annexure R-17 (colly.) written by them to GMADA for expediting the construction work of STP in the project. Therefore, it is apparent that the issue of installation of STP at some place other than the designated place is the inter-se dispute between GMADA and the OPs. The OPs had been making correspondence with GMADA but GMADA has not been arrayed as party in the Complaint, so no direction can be issued to GMADA.

27. Under these circumstances, it would be appropriate to direct the OPs to take up the matter with GMADA for installation of STP at its designated place on urgent basis as per the terms and conditions of the Letter of Allotment (Annexure R-15), so that the allottees who are residing in the project may not suffer from any type of uneasiness, discomfort and health related problems etc.

28. In view of the above discussion as well as the facts and circumstances as mentioned above, it is apparent that the possession of the Flat in dispute was not delivered even within the extended period without any sufficient reason. The 'deficiency in service' on the part of the OP has clearly been proved on record. Accordingly, the OP is liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the entire

20

amount paid by the Complainants w.e.f. the extended date i.e. 30.06.2022 till the delivery of physical possession of the Flat i.e. 23.08.2023. However, the amount of compensation already paid shall be adjusted. The OP is also held liable to pay compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to the Complainant including litigation expenses. The judgments as relied upon by learned Counsel for the OPs are distinguishable and are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

29. It is pertinent to mention here that the similar bunch of matters of same project of the same Builder had been decided by this Commission, i.e. Mrs. Nilanjana Mukhopadhyay & another Vs. Hero Realty Private Limited & others, Consumer Complaint No.13 of 2023, decided on 10.04.2024 in favour of the Complainants. Said order dated 10.04.2024 was challenged by the OPs before the Hon'ble Commission by filing F.A. No.487 of 2024 and said Appeal was disposed off by the Hon'ble National Commission, vide order dated 12.09.2025, which is reproduced as under :-

"Learned Counsel for both the parties have appeared and they state that the parties have settled their matter outside Court and settlement Agreements have been drawn up on 10.09.2025. The photocopies of the said settlement have been placed before us.

In view of the said settlement, learned Counsel for the appellant prays that he may be permitted to withdraw these appeals.

21

Both the appeals are accordingly permitted to be withdrawn.

The photocopies of the settlement may be placed on file."

On perusal of aforesaid order passed by the Hon'ble National Commission, it is apparent that neither order dated 10.04.2024 passed by this Commission has been set aside nor modified. As such the order dated 10.04.2024 passed by this Commission is fully applicable in these cases.

30. Accordingly, the present Complaint is partly allowed with the following directions:

i) The OPs are directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the entire amount paid by the Complainants, w.e.f. the extended date i.e. 30.06.2022 till the delivery of actual and physical possession of the Flat i.e. 23.08.2023, for causing delay in delivery of possession. The amount of compensation already paid shall be adjusted;

ii) To take up the matter with GMADA for installation of STP at its designated place on urgent basis as per terms and conditions of the Letter of Allotment (Annexure R-15), so that the allottees who are residing in the project may not suffer from any kind uneasiness, discomfort and health related problems etc.; and

iii) To pay an amount of ₹35,000/- towards composite compensation for causing mental agony and harassment including litigation expenses.

Consumer Complaint No.22 of 2024

MA No.795 of 2024

31. In this Complaint, the Complainants have also filed MA

22

No.795 of 2024 for seeking permission to file the Complaint jointly on the ground that the Flat in dispute was allotted in their joint names.

32. For the reasons recorded in the Application the same is allowed the Complainants are permitted to file the Complaint in their joint names.

Main Case:

33. Similarly in this Complaint, Complainants were allotted 3 BHK+ST+SR Flat bearing No.T-02/201 in the said project of the OPs. The total price of the said Flat was ₹1,16,90,050/-. Allotment Letter dated 23.05.2022 (Ex.C-2) was issued to the Complainants. The Complainants had paid all the instalments to the OPs as per the payment plan without any delay. However, the OPs had failed to deliver the possession of the Flat even after the extended period. Ultimately the offer of possession was given to the Complainants vide letter dated 10.08.2023 after delay from the extended date i.e. 31.07.2023. Other averments of the Complaint were similar to that of CC No.21 of 2024 and similar prayer was made. The OPs had filed the written reply on the similar lines of their reply as mentioned in CC No.21 of 2024. Similar type of evidence was led by both the parties.

34. In view of the discussion and the reasons as mentioned in CC No.21 of 2024, the present Consumer Complaint is partly allowed and the following directions are issued:

i) The OPs are directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the entire amount paid by the Complainants, w.e.f. the

23

extended date i.e. 31.07.2023 till the delivery of actual and physical possession of the Flat i.e. 27.10.2023, for causing delay in delivery of possession. The amount of compensation already paid shall be adjusted;

ii) to take up the matter with GMADA for installation of STP at its designated place on urgent basis as per terms and conditions of the Letter of Allotment issued to them, so that the allottees who are residing in the project may not suffer from any kind uneasiness, discomfort and health related problems etc.; and

iii) to pay an amount of ₹35,000/- towards composite compensation for causing mental agony and harassment including litigation expenses.

Consumer Complaint No.23 of 2024

35. Similarly in this Complaint, Complainant was allotted 3 BHK+ST+SR Flat bearing No.T-02/1501 in the said project of the OPs. The total price of the said Flat was ₹87,72,850/-. Allotment Letter dated 24.02.2016 (Ex.C-2) was issued to the Complainant. The Complainant had paid all the instalments to the OPs as per the payment plan without any delay. However, the OPs had failed to deliver the possession of the Flat even after the extended period. Ultimately the offer of possession was given to the Complainant vide letter dated 10.08.2023 after delay from the extended date i.e. 21.07.2021. Other averments of the Complaint were similar to that of CC No.21 of 2024 and similar prayer was made. The OPs had filed the written reply on the similar lines of their reply as mentioned in CC No.21 of 2024. Similar type of evidence was led by both the parties.

24

36. In view of the discussion and the reasons as mentioned in CC No.21 of 2024, the present Consumer Complaint is partly allowed and the following directions are issued:

i) The OPs are directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the entire amount paid by the Complainant, w.e.f. the extended date i.e. 21.07.2021 till the delivery of actual and physical possession of the Flat i.e. 19.10.2023, for causing delay in delivery of possession. The amount of compensation already paid shall be adjusted;

ii) to take up the matter with GMADA for installation of STP at its designated place on urgent basis as per terms and conditions of the Letter of Allotment issued to them, so that the allottees who are residing in the project may not suffer from any kind uneasiness, discomfort and health related problems etc.; and

iii) to pay an amount of ₹35,000/- towards composite compensation for causing mental agony and harassment including litigation expenses.

Consumer Complaint No.24 of 2024

MA No.796 of 2024

37. In this Complaint, the Complainants have also filed MA No.796 of 2024 for seeking permission to file the Complaint jointly on the ground that the Flat in dispute was allotted in their joint names.

38. For the reasons recorded in the Application the same is allowed the Complainants are permitted to file the Complaint in their joint names.

25

Main Case:

39. Similarly in this Complaint, Complainants were allotted 3 BHK+ST+SR Flat bearing No.T-02/1401 in the said project of the OPs. The total price of the said Flat was ₹92,14,427/-. Allotment Letter dated 24.09.2018 (Ex.C-3) was issued to the Complainants. The Complainants had paid all the instalments to the OPs as per the payment plan without any delay. However, the OPs had failed to deliver the possession of the Flat even after the extended period. Ultimately the offer of possession was given to the Complainants vide letter dated 14.08.2023 after delay from the extended date i.e. 30.09.2021. Other averments of the Complaint were similar to that of CC No.21 of 2024 and similar prayer was made. The OPs had filed the written reply on the similar lines of their reply as mentioned in CC No.21 of 2024. Similar type of evidence was led by both the parties.

40. In view of the discussion and the reasons as mentioned in CC No.21 of 2024, the present Consumer Complaint is partly allowed and the following directions are issued:

i) The OPs are directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the entire amount paid by the Complainants, w.e.f. the extended date i.e. 30.09.2021 till the delivery of actual and physical possession of the Flat i.e. 23.08.2023, for causing delay in delivery of possession. The amount of compensation already paid shall be adjusted;

ii) to take up the matter with GMADA for installation of STP at its designated place on urgent basis as per terms and conditions of the Letter of Allotment issued to them, so that the allottees who

26

are residing in the project may not suffer from any kind uneasiness, discomfort and health related problems etc.; and

iii) to pay an amount of ₹35,000/- towards composite compensation for causing mental agony and harassment including litigation expenses.

Consumer Complaint No.25 of 2024

MA No.797 of 2024

41. In this Complaint, the Complainants have also filed MA No.797 of 2024 for seeking permission to file the Complaint jointly on the ground that the Flat in dispute was allotted in their joint names.

42. For the reasons recorded in the Application the same is allowed the Complainants are permitted to file the Complaint in their joint names.

Main Case:

43. Similarly in this Complaint, Complainants were allotted 3 BHK+ST+SR Flat bearing No.T-02/1602 in the said project of the OPs. The total price of the said Flat was ₹90,67,300/-. Allotment Letter dated 27.09.2019 (Ex.C-2) was issued to the Complainants. The Complainants had paid all the instalments to the OPs as per the payment plan without any delay. However, the OPs had failed to deliver the possession of the Flat even after the extended period. Ultimately the offer of possession was given to the Complainants vide letter dated 10.08.2023 after delay from the extended date i.e. 30.09.2021. Other averments of the Complaint were similar to that of CC No.21 of 2024 and similar prayer was made. The OPs had filed the

27

written reply on the similar lines of their reply as mentioned in CC No.21 of 2024. Similar type of evidence was led by both the parties.

44. In view of the discussion and the reasons as mentioned in CC No.21 of 2024, the present Consumer Complaint is partly allowed and the following directions are issued:

i) The OPs are directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the entire amount paid by the Complainants, w.e.f. the extended date i.e. 30.09.2021 till the delivery of actual and physical possession of the Flat i.e. 05.11.2023, for causing delay in delivery of possession. The amount of compensation already paid shall be adjusted;

ii) to take up the matter with GMADA for installation of STP at its designated place on urgent basis as per terms and conditions of the Letter of Allotment issued to them, so that the allottees who are residing in the project may not suffer from any kind uneasiness, discomfort and health related problems etc.; and

iii) to pay an amount of ₹35,000/- towards composite compensation for causing mental agony and harassment including litigation expenses.

Consumer Complaint No.26 of 2024

MA No.798 of 2024

45. In this Complaint, the Complainants have also filed MA No.798 of 2024 for seeking permission to file the Complaint jointly on the ground that the Flat in dispute was allotted in their joint names.

46. For the reasons recorded in the Application the same is allowed the Complainants are permitted to file the Complaint in their joint names.

28

Main Case:

47. Similarly in this Complaint, Complainants were allotted 3 BHK+ST+SR Flat bearing No.T-02/602 in the said project of the OPs. The total price of the said Flat was ₹89,77,600/-. Allotment Letter dated 01.04.2021 (Ex.C-2) was issued to the Complainants. The Complainants had paid all the instalments to the OPs as per the payment plan without any delay. However, the OPs had failed to deliver the possession of the Flat even after the extended period. Ultimately the offer of possession was given to the Complainants vide letter dated 10.08.2023 after delay from the extended date i.e. 31.06.2022. Other averments of the Complaint were similar to that of CC No.21 of 2024 and similar prayer was made. The OPs had filed the written reply on the similar lines of their reply as mentioned in CC No.21 of 2024. Similar type of evidence was led by both the parties.

48. In view of the discussion and the reasons as mentioned in CC No.21 of 2024, the present Consumer Complaint is partly allowed and the following directions are issued:

i) The OPs are directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the entire amount paid by the Complainants, w.e.f. the extended date i.e. 31.06.2022 till the delivery of actual and physical possession of the Flat i.e. 25.11.2023, for causing delay in delivery of possession. The amount of compensation already paid shall be adjusted;

ii) to take up the matter with GMADA for installation of STP at its designated place on urgent basis as per terms and conditions of the Letter of Allotment issued to them, so that the allottees who

29

are residing in the project may not suffer from any kind uneasiness, discomfort and health related problems etc.; and

iii) to pay an amount of ₹35,000/- towards composite compensation for causing mental agony and harassment including litigation expenses.

Consumer Complaint No.27 of 2024

49. Similarly in this Complaint, Complainant was allotted 3 BHK+ST+SR Flat bearing No.T-02/501 in the said project of the OPs. The total price of the said Flat was ₹89,03,500/-. Allotment Letter dated 01.03.2016 (Ex.C-2) was issued to the Complainant. The Complainant had paid all the instalments to the OPs as per the payment plan without any delay. However, the OPs had failed to deliver the possession of the Flat even after the extended period. Ultimately the offer of possession was offered to the Complainant vide letter dated 17.08.2023 after delay from the extended date i.e. 21.07.2021. Other averments of the Complaint were similar to that of CC No.21 of 2024 and similar prayer was made. The OPs had filed the written reply on the similar lines of their reply as mentioned in CC No.21 of 2024. Similar type of evidence was led by both the parties.

50. In view of the discussion and the reasons as mentioned in CC No.21 of 2024, the present Consumer Complaint is partly allowed and the following directions are issued:

i) The OPs are directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the entire amount paid by the Complainant, w.e.f. the extended date i.e. 21.07.2021 till the delivery of actual and physical possession of the Flat i.e. 24.08.2023, for causing delay

30

in delivery of possession. The amount of compensation already paid shall be adjusted;

ii) to take up the matter with GMADA for installation of STP at its designated place on urgent basis as per terms and conditions of the Letter of Allotment issued to them, so that the allottees who are residing in the project may not suffer from any kind uneasiness, discomfort and health related problems etc.; and

iii) to pay an amount of ₹35,000/- towards composite compensation for causing mental agony and harassment including litigation expenses.

Consumer Complaint No.28 of 2024

51. Similarly in this Complaint, Complainant was allotted 3 BHK+ST+SR Flat bearing No.T-02/1203 in the said project of the OPs. The total price of the said Flat was ₹1,01,84,942/-. Allotment Letter dated 28.07.2021 (Ex.C-2) was issued to the Complainant. The Complainant had paid all the instalments to the OPs as per the payment plan without any delay. However, the OPs had failed to deliver the possession of the Flat even after the extended period. Ultimately the offer of possession was offered to the Complainant vide letter dated 10.08.2023 after delay from the extended date i.e. 31.06.2022. Other averments of the Complaint were similar to that of CC No.21 of 2024 and similar prayer was made. The OPs had filed the written reply on the similar lines of their reply as mentioned in CC No.21 of 2024. Similar type of evidence was led by both the parties.

52. In view of the discussion and the reasons as mentioned in CC No.21 of 2024, the present Consumer Complaint is partly allowed and the following directions are issued:

31

i) The OPs are directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the entire amount paid by the Complainant, w.e.f. the extended date i.e. 31.06.2022 till the delivery of actual and physical possession of the Flat i.e. 19.01.2023, for causing delay in delivery of possession. The amount of compensation already paid shall be adjusted;

ii) to take up the matter with GMADA for installation of STP at its designated place on urgent basis as per terms and conditions of the Letter of Allotment issued to them, so that the allottees who are residing in the project may not suffer from any kind uneasiness, discomfort and health related problems etc.; and

iii) to pay an amount of ₹35,000/- towards composite compensation for causing mental agony and harassment including litigation expenses.

Consumer Complaint No.29 of 2024

MA No.799 of 2024

53. In this Complaint, the Complainants have also filed MA No.799 of 2024 for seeking permission to file the Complaint jointly on the ground that the Flat in dispute was allotted in their joint names.

54. For the reasons recorded in the Application the same is allowed the Complainants are permitted to file the Complaint in their joint names.

Main Case:

55. Similarly in this Complaint, Complainants were allotted 3 BHK+ST+SR Flat bearing No.T-02/403 in the said project of the OPs. The total price of the said Flat was ₹87,49,060/-. Allotment Letter dated 21.09.2019 (Ex.C-2) was issued to the Complainants. The

32

Complainants had paid all the instalments to the OPs as per the payment plan without any delay. However, the OPs had failed to deliver the possession of the Flat even after the extended period. Ultimately the offer of possession was given to the Complainants vide letter dated 10.08.2023 after delay from the extended date i.e. 30.09.2021. Other averments of the Complaint were similar to that of CC No.21 of 2024 and similar prayer was made. The OPs had filed the written reply on the similar lines of their reply as mentioned in CC No.21 of 2024. Similar type of evidence was led by both the parties.

56. In view of the discussion and the reasons as mentioned in CC No.21 of 2024, the present Consumer Complaint is partly allowed and the following directions are issued:

i) The OPs are directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the entire amount paid by the Complainants, w.e.f. the extended date i.e. 30.09.2021 till the delivery of actual and physical possession of the Flat i.e. 02.11.2023, for causing delay in delivery of possession. The amount of compensation already paid shall be adjusted;

ii) to take up the matter with GMADA for installation of STP at its designated place on urgent basis as per terms and conditions of the Letter of Allotment issued to them, so that the allottees who are residing in the project may not suffer from any kind uneasiness, discomfort and health related problems etc.; and

iii) to pay an amount of ₹35,000/- towards composite compensation for causing mental agony and harassment including litigation expenses.

33

Consumer Complaint No.30 of 2024

MA No.800 of 2024

57. In this Complaint, the Complainants have also filed MA No.800 of 2024 for seeking permission to file the Complaint jointly on the ground that the Flat in dispute was allotted in their joint names.

58. For the reasons recorded in the Application the same is allowed the Complainants are permitted to file the Complaint in their joint names.

Main Case:

59. Similarly in this Complaint, Complainants were allotted 3 BHK+ST+SR Flat bearing No.T-02/104 in the said project of the OPs. The total price of the said Flat was ₹1,16,25,700/-. Builder Buyer's Agreement was executed between the parties on 24.06.2022 (Ex.C-2). The Complainants had paid all the instalments to the OPs as per the payment plan without any delay. However, the OPs had failed to deliver the possession of the Flat even after the extended period. Ultimately the offer of possession was given to the Complainants vide letter dated 10.08.2023 after delay from the extended date i.e. 31.07.2023. Other averments of the Complaint were similar to that of CC No.21 of 2024 and similar prayer was made. The OPs had filed the written reply on the similar lines of their reply as mentioned in CC No.21 of 2024. Similar type of evidence was led by both the parties.

60. In view of the discussion and the reasons as mentioned in CC No.21 of 2024, the present Consumer Complaint is partly allowed and the following directions are issued:

34

i) The OPs are directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the entire amount paid by the Complainants, w.e.f. the extended date i.e. 31.07.2023 till the delivery of actual and physical possession of the Flat i.e. 12.10.2023, for causing delay in delivery of possession. The amount of compensation already paid shall be adjusted;

ii) to take up the matter with GMADA for installation of STP at its designated place on urgent basis as per terms and conditions of the Letter of Allotment issued to them, so that the allottees who are residing in the project may not suffer from any kind uneasiness, discomfort and health related problems etc.; and

iii) to pay an amount of ₹35,000/- towards composite compensation for causing mental agony and harassment including litigation expenses.

Consumer Complaint No.31 of 2024

61. Similarly in this Complaint, Complainant was allotted 3 BHK+ST+SR Flat bearing No.T-02/1204 in the said project of the OPs. The total price of the said Flat was ₹99,53,146/-. Allotment Letter dated 19.10.2020 (Ex.C-2) was issued to the Complainant. The Complainant had paid all the instalments to the OPs as per the payment plan without any delay. However, the OPs had failed to deliver the possession of the Flat even after the extended period. Ultimately the offer of possession was offered to the Complainant vide letter dated 14.08.2023 after delay from the extended date i.e. 31.06.2022. Other averments of the Complaint were similar to that of CC No.21 of 2024 and similar prayer was made. The OPs had filed the written reply on the similar lines of their reply as mentioned in CC No.21 of 2024. Similar type of evidence was led by both the parties.

35

62. In view of the discussion and the reasons as mentioned in CC No.21 of 2024, the present Consumer Complaint is partly allowed and the following directions are issued:

i) The OPs are directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the entire amount paid by the Complainant, w.e.f. the extended date i.e. 31.06.2022 till the delivery of actual and physical possession of the Flat i.e. 24.08.2023, for causing delay in delivery of possession. The amount of compensation already paid shall be adjusted;

ii) to take up the matter with GMADA for installation of STP at its designated place on urgent basis as per terms and conditions of the Letter of Allotment issued to them, so that the allottees who are residing in the project may not suffer from any kind uneasiness, discomfort and health related problems etc.; and

iii) to pay an amount of ₹35,000/- towards composite compensation for causing mental agony and harassment including litigation expenses.

Consumer Complaint No.32 of 2024

63. Similarly in this Complaint, Complainant was allotted 3 BHK+ST+SR Flat bearing No.T-02/404 in the said project of the OPs. The total price of the said Flat was ₹1,01,89,700/-. Allotment Letter dated 26.09.2020 (Ex.C-2) was issued to the Complainant. The Complainant had paid all the instalments to the OPs as per the payment plan without any delay. However, the OPs had failed to deliver the possession of the Flat even after the extended period. Ultimately the offer of possession was offered to the Complainant vide letter dated 10.08.2023 after delay from the extended date i.e. 31.06.2022. Other averments of the Complaint were similar to that of

36

CC No.21 of 2024 and similar prayer was made. The OPs had filed the written reply on the similar lines of their reply as mentioned in CC No.21 of 2024. Similar type of evidence was led by both the parties.

64. In view of the discussion and the reasons as mentioned in CC No.21 of 2024, the present Consumer Complaint is partly allowed and the following directions are issued:

i) The OPs are directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the entire amount paid by the Complainant, w.e.f. the extended date i.e. 31.06.2022 till the delivery of actual and physical possession of the Flat i.e. 25.08.2023, for causing delay in delivery of possession. The amount of compensation already paid shall be adjusted;

ii) to take up the matter with GMADA for installation of STP at its designated place on urgent basis as per terms and conditions of the Letter of Allotment issued to them, so that the allottees who are residing in the project may not suffer from any kind uneasiness, discomfort and health related problems etc.; and

iii) to pay an amount of ₹35,000/- towards composite compensation for causing mental agony and harassment including litigation expenses.

Consumer Complaint No.33 of 2024

MA No.801 of 2024

65. In this Complaint, the Complainants have also filed MA No.801 of 2024 for seeking permission to file the Complaint jointly on the ground that the Flat in dispute was allotted in their joint names.

66. For the reasons recorded in the Application the same is allowed the Complainants are permitted to file the Complaint in their

37

joint names.

Main Case:

67. Similarly in this Complaint, Complainants were allotted 3 BHK+ST+SR Flat bearing No.T-02/2001 in the said project of the OPs. The total price of the said Flat was ₹91,42,799/-. Builder Buyer's Agreement was executed between the parties on 24.02.2016 (Ex.C-2). The Complainants had paid all the instalments to the OPs as per the payment plan without any delay. However, the OPs had failed to deliver the possession of the Flat even after the extended period. Ultimately the offer of possession was given to the Complainants vide letter dated 10.08.2023 after delay from the extended date i.e. 16.06.2022. Other averments of the Complaint were similar to that of CC No.21 of 2024 and similar prayer was made. The OPs had filed the written reply on the similar lines of their reply as mentioned in CC No.21 of 2024. Similar type of evidence was led by both the parties.

68. In view of the discussion and the reasons as mentioned in CC No.21 of 2024, the present Consumer Complaint is partly allowed and the following directions are issued:

i) The OPs are directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the entire amount paid by the Complainants, w.e.f. the extended date i.e. 16.06.2022 till the delivery of actual and physical possession of the Flat i.e. 07.09.2023, for causing delay in delivery of possession. The amount of compensation already paid shall be adjusted;

ii) to take up the matter with GMADA for installation of STP at its designated place on urgent basis as per terms and conditions of

38

the Letter of Allotment issued to them, so that the allottees who are residing in the project may not suffer from any kind uneasiness, discomfort and health related problems etc.; and

iii) to pay an amount of ₹35,000/- towards composite compensation for causing mental agony and harassment including litigation expenses.

69. The compliance of the orders passed in all the Complaints shall be made by the OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the orders.

70. Since the main cases have been disposed off, so all the pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, are accordingly disposed off.

71. The Complaints could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY)

PRESIDENT

(VISHAV KANT GARG)

MEMBER

October 14 , 2025.

(MM)