JUDGMENT :

K.P. DINESH, J.

1. This appeal is filed under Section 44 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 read with Rule 33 of the Karnataka Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred in short as 'The Act and the Rules') against the impugned order dated 31st January, 2020 passed by the learned Adjudicating Officer (A.O.), Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA).

2. Facts of the appellant's case in brief are that:

(a) The appellant had executed an agreement to sell dated 3-9-2014 with the 1st respondent for purchase of a residential apartment bearing No. V-401, 4th floor, 'B' block, Adarsh Premia being constructed by the 1st respondent along with a proportionate undivided share in the Schedule A property described in the agreement. The sale of the apartment is subject to the clause No. 15 of the agreement and shall be completed within 36 months with a grace period of three months i.e., by December 2017, provided that the purchaser has paid the entire amount due. The 1st respondent, by letter dated 27-4-2017, informed the appellant that the completion time schedule of the project has been revised and the appellant was coerced to entire into a supplementary agreement dated 27-4-2017, according to which the schedule property would be completed and handed over by the end of December 2018.

(b) The appellant was not afforded time to consider and evaluate the terms of the supplementary agreement and was pressurised to sign the same. When the appellant and her husband visited the construction site in May 2018, found that the construction had not been in progress as per the revised time schedule and it was informed that the project might require another three to four years to complete. Since time revision was unilateral and without informing the appellant, the appellant cancelled the booking as per the letter dated 24-5-2018 seeking refund of the amount paid along with interest and compensation.

(c) The 1st respondent, by its letter dated 2-6-2018, agreed for cancellation of the agreement to sell and refund the amount paid by the appellant within 60 days forfeiting 10% of the booking amount. The forfeiture of 10% of the booking amount by respondent 1 was arbitrary and for no fault of the appellant, who adhered to the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell. The 1st respondent failed to comply with the timeline indicated by it in the previous communications and to refund the said amount. The 1st respondent simply ignored the numerous communications from the appellant and failed to refund the amount and the appellant was constrained to issue legal notice dated 5-9-2018. In spite of legal notice, the 1st respondent failed to comply with the demands made in the notice and sought for three months time (until the end of January, 2019) to process the refund The appellant once again issued a legal notice dated 31-10-2018, calling upon the 1st respondent to refund the consideration amount with interest and compensation. There was no response from the 1st respondent even for the second legal notice and the appellant was constrained to file a complaint CMP/190212/0002077 before the 2nd respondent.

(d) On 24-4-2019, 1st respondent informed the appellant that the refund of the advance amounts would be through two post dated cheques for Rs. 50,00,000/- and Rs. 99,20,268/- dated 30-5-2019 and 30-6-2019, respectively. The appellant agreed to collect the postdated cheques under protest since the 1st respondent had refused to pay any interest and compensation, which was causing financial distress to the appellant.

(e) Subsequently, 1st respondent informed the appellant that the refund cheques would be handed over only if the appellant signs a cancellation deed drafted by the 1st respondent. The terms of the cancellation deed were fundamentally unfair and one sided and consequently, appellant suggested certain changes to the draft, however, the changes suggested by the appellant were rejected by the 1st re