JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. Consumer Complaint 335/2017 was instituted by the respondent Shailesh Gupta and 47 other complainants against the petitioner Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. before the learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ("the learned NCDRC") under Section 12(1)(c)¹ read with Section 21² of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act") and Order I Rule 8³ of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("the CPC"), as a representative class action complaint. It was clearly stated, in the complaint, that it was being filed for resolution and redressal of the grievances of the 48 named complainants "and also to address the common grievance of all the consumers who are affected by the price discrimination by the opposite party in the `Aanand Vilas' project".

2. The complaint averred that, relying on advertisements issued by the petitioner, the complainants booked apartments in the `Aanand Vilas' project by making an initial payment of Rs.7.5 lakhs for 3 BHK and Rs.10 lakhs for 4 BHK apartments. It was alleged, in the complaint, that (i) the application form provided to the complainants and other investors in the petitioner's project did not contain relevant or substantial information about the project or the time within which it would be completed (ii) the Provisional Allotment letter, which was forwarded to the investors/apartment buyers nearly a month after the filing of the application form, stated, inter alia, that, if the signed application form was not received back within 15 days of receipt by the concerned apartment buyer/investor, the offer of allotment would stand automatically cancelled and the money deposited by the investor/buyer would be refunded after deducting 15% of the sale consideration of the flat as earnest money, without interest, (iii) the Apartment Buyer Agreement (ABA) which subsequently came to be executed between the buyers and the petitioner was a one sided document containing several arbitrary and coercive clauses; moreover, it enhanced the period within which possession of the flats were to be handed over to the buyers to 54 months, as against 36 months held out at the pre-launched stage, (iv) the buyers/investors were coerced to pay several charges such as Preferential Location Charges (PLC), car parking, club furnishing charges and fire fighting charges, which found no place in the initial application form provided to them, which they had filled in and submitted, (v) though 80-90 % of the payments demanded by the petitioner had been paid by the complainants, the complainants were forced to honour all the allegedly illegal demands of the petitioner and (vi) the petitioner was allotting identical flats to outsiders at nearly half the price at which they were allotted to the complainants.

3. These acts of the petitioner, it was alleged, constituted "unfair trade practices" within the meaning of Section 2(r)(1)(ix)⁴ of the Act, as the petitioner was effectively misappropriating hard earned money of the investors.

4. Predicated on the aforesaid allegations, the consumer complaint prayed thus:

"That in view of the above, the Complainants pray before this Hon'ble Commission to:

i. Direct the Opposite Party to handover legal possession of the respective apartments to all the similarly situated aggrieved buyers/allottees/consumers who have been affected because of the price discrimination in the project "Aanand Vilas, in Sector 81, Faridabad, Haryana" of the Opposite Party which is complete in all respect and in conformity with the Apartment Buyer Agreement and along with the completion certification and all other additional/requisite permissions for the same;

ii. Direct the Opposite Party for an immediate 100% refund of the excessive amount paid by all the similarly situated aggrieved buyers/allottees/consumers who have been affected because of the price discrimination in the project "Aanand Vilas, in Sector 81, Faridabad, Haryana" of the Opposite Party like the inflated B