IMPORTANT POINT
Builder is bound to compensate for loss and injury suffered by complainant for failure to deliver possession.
Appeals dismissed.IMPORTANT POINT
Builder is bound to compensate for loss and injury suffered by complainant for failure to deliver possession.

The instant matter relates to 3 f. a. s filed by the appellant – one director of the builder co. under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the State Commission’s Orders (3 nos.) dated 21.03.2017, 23.02.2017 and 02.03.2017 whereby the State Commission directed the opposite parties – three directors of the builder co. to refund the deposited amount (Rs.24,00,000/-; Rs. 25,00,000/-; Rs. 25,00,000/-) to the respondents – complainants; with interest (@ 12% p.a.; @ 12% p.a.; @ 12% p.a.) from the respective dates of deposit till realization; compensation (Rs.2,00,000/-; Rs.2,00,000/-; Rs.2,00,000/-); and litigation expenses (Rs.20,000/-; Rs.20,000/-; Rs.25,000/-).

2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant – director of the builder co. and perused the material on record.

3. First appeals no. 2273 of 2017, 2274 of 2017 and 2275 of 2017 have arisen from consumer complaints no. 155 of 2015, 287 of 2015 and 314 of 2015 before the State Commission. In the said c.c.s (3 nos.), the parties were:—

Bhavendra Kumar	– Complainant in C.C. No. 155 of 2015
Munish Kanwar	– Complainant in C.C. No. 287 of 2015
Tirlochan Singh	– Complainant in C.C. No. 314 of 2015

versus

1. Sh. H. S. Anand, Director, Mariners Buildcon India Ltd.C-10, Kailash Colony,New Delhi-110048   –	Opposite Party No.1
2. Mrs. Harjas Kaur Anand, Director, Mariners Buildcon India Ltd. C-10, Kailash Colony, New Delhi-110048	Opposite Party No.2
3. Amrita Rosha D/o Rajinder Singh Rosha, Director, Mariners Buildcon India Ltd., M-131, Greater Kailash Part-I, New Delhi-110048	Opposite Party No.3

The opposite party no. 3, Amrita Rosha, Director, Mariners Buildcon India Ltd., is the appellant herein in the instant f.a.s no. 2273 of 2017, 2274 of 2017 and 2275 of 2017.

4. The salient material facts and the specific awards made in the 3 c.c.s are depicted in tabular form below:—

C.C. No. (F.A. No.)	Amount deposited by the Complainant with the builder co./its functionaries	Dates of deposits Date of Institution of Complaint Date of State Commission’s Order	Assured Date of Delivery	Newspaper in which Publication made for effecting service	Refund the deposited amount with interest	Award expenses	Compensation Litigation
155 of 2015 (f.a. 2273 |of 2017)	Rs.24,00,000/-	31.12.2009, 20.05.2010, 20.01.2011, 10.09.2012, 15.07.2013 02.07.2015 21.03.2017 11.10.2010,	end of 2012	The Times of India	Rs.24,00,000/- + @12% p.a. from the respective dates of deposits till realization	Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.20,000/-
287 of 2015 (f.a. 2274 of 2017)	Rs.25,00,000/-	29.01.2011, 10.09.2012, 15.07.2013 02.11.2015 23.02.2017	end of 2012	Daily Tribune	Rs.25,00,000/- + @12% p.a. from the respective dates of deposits till realization	Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.20,000/-
314 of 2015 (f.a. 2275 of 2017)	Rs.25,00,000/-	02.02.2008, 11.08.2010, 12.02.2011, 10.09.2012, 15.07.2013 07.12.2015 02.03.2017	end of 2012	The Times of India	Rs.25,00,000/- + @12% p.a. from the respective dates of deposits till realization	Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.25,000/-

5. We note that these 3 f. a. s have similar facts and same questions of law involved.

We are taking f. a. no. 2273 of 2017, arising from the Order dated 21.03.2017 of the State Commission in c.c. no. 155 of 2015, Amrita Rosha Jain vs. Bhavendra Kumar & Ors., as the lead-case.

6. The facts, as taken from the lead-case, first appeal no. 2273 of 2017, and as recorded in para 2 of the Order dated 21.03.2017 of the State Commission in c.c. no. 155 of 2015, are as below:—

2. The relevant brief facts of the case as averred in the complaint are that the complainant, namely Bhavendra Kumar S/o Sh. Piush Kumar has filed his complaint. The complainant was ind