The main legal point established is that the Consumer Forums have jurisdiction over cases involving deficiency in service by builders, and the court may grant interest on amounts deposited by flat purchasers.

Mr. B.K. Taimni, Member—These are two separate complaints filed by M/s. Pushpa Builders Flat Buyers’ Association alleging deficiency in service on the part of M/s. Pushpa Builders Ltd., the respondents in this case.

2. Briefly put the facts are that the complainants in both the cases, in response to the advertisement/property melas, applies for purchase of flats in 1988-89 in two complexes namely, ‘Pushpa Akash’ and ‘Pushpa Vaishali’ to be built by the respondents, in Vaishali area G.D.A., in Ghaziabad. These were to be built in both free-hold and lease-hold hands. According to the Brochure on record, flats were to be completed by December, 1991. When the flats were nowhere in sight, the complainants delayed the payment of instalments on the one hand and the work came to a standstill at the site, on the other. As a result of these allegations and counter allegations, some ten complainants filed a complaint before this Commission in 1994 (O.P. 60/1994), orders on which was passed by this Commission in June, 1996 directing the respondents - who are also the respondents in these complaints before us - to refund the amount deposited by those ten complainants along with interest @ 18%. In appeal, the order of this Commission was maintained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It appears that five more flat buyers applied to be included in Complaint No. 60/1994, but this Commission did not take them on record and the order in O.P. 60/1994 was passed in respect of ten complainants as originally listed in that complaint.

3. Since complainants in both the complaints before us in O.P. 215/1996 and 326/2000 are being represented through the same complainant’s Association, respondents are the same and cause of action is the same, we are inclined to pass one single order in the two complaints filed before us.

O.P. No. 215/1996 :

4. Originally, the complainant Association filed this complaint before this Commission in respect and on behalf of ten flats purchasers from the respondent - Pushpa Builders. These ten flat purchasers were M/s. Kamala Mathur, Sunil Malhotra, V. Krishnamurthy, S.M. Afzal Naqvi, Janardan Pant, Anuragni Sharma, Indu Aggarwal, Chandan Mitra, S.K. Kharbanda and M/s. Nugas Engineering Corpn. Their case is that they have paid between 50% to 100% of the booked price of the flat in the two complexes namely, ‘Pushpa Akash’ and ‘Pushpa Vaishali’ in response to the advertisement and at several Property Melas organised by the respondent. Bookings were done in late 1988 - early 1989 with a promise to deliver flats in 1991, ‘Agreements’ for which were signed much later. Even though, the complainants did not like many ‘Terms’ of the Agreement, they could not get out of it as they had already made substantial payments to the respondent. In the Brochure several promises were made about these complexes, highlights of which were just 15% of ground coverage; all rest landscaped lush green; parking and recreational area; marble flooring in the ‘lift’ lobby, balance flooring in white cement with white marble chips; high speed modern elevators. Some of the special features were : independent electric transformers in each apartment; standby generator sets; Central Video system; parks and playground for children; huge parking areas all around the complex buildings etc. etc. Complainant’s case is that even though the year 1996 has arrived but there is no sign of the completed flats ready to be handed over to them. They have also referred to the ‘inadequacies’, brought about in the report of the Special Commissioner appointed by this Commission in 1995 to report on the same complex in a case (O.P. 60/1994) decided by us. It was based on this report that this Commission arrived at the conclusion (in O.P. 60/1994) finding the respondent before us deficient in services and ordering refund of the total amount deposited by the flat purchasers along with interest @ 18%. Prayer of the complainant is that since the respondent has failed to deliver the poss