The court's decision emphasized the importance of compliance with consumer protection orders, the non-existence of the plot, and the resolution of disputed demand drafts.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeals have been filed by the appellant-society assailing the judgment passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission(hereinafter being referred to as the "National Commission") impugned dated 9th August, 2019 and also the later order passed in the review application dated 16th October 2019.

3. The brief facts which may be relevant for the present purpose are that the respondents herein who are members of the appellant-society, filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(in short the 'Act') that after becoming members of the society by depositing Rs.110/- as membership fee, vide receipt dated 29th January 1997, they were entitled to a plot of one kanal in Block-C. The total cost of the plot was Rs.5.50 lakhs. The respondents have paid Rs.3 lakhs against the total price of Rs.5.50 lakhs during the period April, 1998 to February 1999.

4. A public notice dated 27th April, 2007 was published having wide circulation, still the balance amount was not paid by them and accordingly, at later point of time, they received a letter informing them that their right to allotment had got cancelled due to nonpayment of the remaining amount which came to be challenged by filing on a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and the matter finally disposed of by the National Commission by its Order dated 9th August, 2019 with the following order:-

A. The complainants shall pay the remaining amount of Rs.2.50 lacs alongwith 15% per annum interest from 01.06.2000 till the date of due payment. This amount may be paid within eight weeks from the date of this order.

B. Once this amount is paid, the Ops/petitioners shall deliver the peaceful and vacant possession of the plot within45 days of receiving the amount and shall convey the property in favour of the complainants.

C. If the complainants do not want to deposit the ordered amount, the complainants will have a right to seek refund of the paid amount of Rs. 3 lacs and the OPs shall refund the said amount alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of respective deposits till actual payment within 45 days of receiving such request from the complainants."

5. It may be relevant to note that the statement of the appellants-society was recorded by the National Commission in the order itself that after cancellation of the allotment in favour of the respondents/complainants that plot had already been allotted to third party and it is not possible to comply with the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as the plot is nonexistent and that appears to be the reason that the National Commission has further directed that if the allotment would not have been possible, let the money deposited by the complainant be refunded with interest @ 12%.

6. It is brought to our notice that during the course of proceedings pending before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, the appellants had deposited a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs by demand draft no. 443148 dated 6th August, 2014 draw non Punjab National Bank and a further sum of Rs. 12 lakhs has been deposited by the appellants in the Registry of this Court in compliance of Order dated 6th January 2020.

7. That apart, there is also a complaint made by the respondents that in compliance of the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, two bank drafts bearing no. 946716 and 946715 dated 29th December, 2014 drawn on Punjab National Bank amounting to Rs.3,37,500/- and Rs.2,50,000/- were sent by Registered Post on 29th December, 2014 which have been delivered in the office of the appellants dated 30th December, 2014. Xerox copy of the said demand drafts has been placed on record by the respondents along with the counter affidavit.

8. The fact in reference to the two alleged demand drafts sent through Registered Post on 29th December, 2014 mentioned above has been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants