Key Points: - (!) The NCDRC held there was deficiency in service for transferring the project to a third party instead of delivering to the complainants. - (!) Appellants failed to justify the transfer of property to a third party despite contractual obligation to the respondents. - (!) There is deficiency of service; questions of quantum of compensation to be determined. - (!) Damages under the Consumer Protection Act for commercial contracts must be determined as per Indian Contract Act. - (!) General principle: compensatory damages to place the injured party in the position as if contract had been performed. - (!) Compensation can vary based on loss/injury; no uniform 18% rule; factors include possession delay, harassment, and price escalation. - (!) Distinction between possession-and-refund cases; compensation may reflect loss and possible value increase; not uniform. - (!) Appellate court fixes market rate Rs. 50,000 per sq ft to determine market value; calculated damages accordingly. - (!) Appellants to refund Rs. 1,87,00,000 and pay Rs. 2,27,20,000 as compensation plus Rs. 20,00,000 for parking and Rs. 10,000 costs; payment within six weeks with 9% interest if default. - (!) Review/notice deposit adjustments: Rs. 2,50,00,000 deposited earlier to be adjusted against liability.

What is the deficiency in service and damages for breach of contract under the Consumer Protection Act in the context of real estate redevelopment?