The court emphasized the prohibition of unfair trade practices under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and imposed punitive damages for abuse of process of law and frivolous litigation.

ORDER

Mr. V.B. Gupta, (P.M) - Consumer Complaints (No.81 and 82 of 2013) filed by Respondents/Complainants namely, Munish Dev Sharma and Sanjay Gupta, respectively were allowed by Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (for short, 'State Commission') vide separate orders dated 30.7.2014.

2. Being aggrieved, Appellants/Opposite Parties, have filed First Appeals (No.1215 and 1216 of 2014).

3. As facts in these complaints are similar and common question of law is involved, these appeals are being disposed of a common order.

4. In the year 2011, appellants framed a development scheme over an area of 94.97 acres of land for allotment of residential plots in Surya Enclave Extension, Jalandhar for which booking commenced w.e.f. 8.8.2011. Appellants invited applications from the general public. Respondents also applied for residential plots measuring 200 sq. yard each, the tentative price of which was Rs. 17,000/- per sq. yard. Vide allotment letters dated 26.12.2011 and 23.12.2011, respondents were allotted Plots No. 379-D and 305-D, respectively. As per terms and conditions of the allotment letter, entire payment, that is, Rs. 30,69,450/- each, was to be made within 30 days of the date of issuance of allotment letter or in the instalments along with interest, as indicated in the allotment letter. Further, as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter, agreement to sell was to be executed within 30 days of the date of issuance of the allotment letter. Thereafter, possession of plots was to be handed over.

5. It is alleged by respondents, that they had paid sum of Rs. 28,22,950/- each, till 24.6.2014. As per terms of the allotment letter, development facilities had to be completed within 2 years and possession of plots by the allottee can be taken from the appellant after execution of the agreement for sale. On 18.1.2012, the agreement as envisaged in the allotment letter was executed. After execution of the agreement, appellants were under obligation to immediately deliver possession of the plots to the respondents. But appellants have not performed their part of the agreement. Since, appellants have failed to deliver the possession of the plots in question, despite respondents having paid substantial amount till date therefore, respondents are unable to take further steps for getting the plan sanctioned and start the construction, within the stipulated period of three years.

6. It is further stated, that respondents personally visited the sites in July, 2013. They noticed, that there is no sign of any development at the site nor there is any demarcation of the plots till date. Thereafter, respondents visited the office of the appellant and came to know, that there is some dispute between the owners and the appellant, which has not been sorted out till date. Thus, by not ensuring that there was no encumbrance on the land acquired by the appellants for the scheme in question, before proceeding to collect money from the consumers for allotment of residential plots to them, the appellants have exhibited gross negligence and deficiency in performance on their part. In this manner, respondents have suffered huge loss, as amount deposited by them with appellants got struck. The appellants are neither returning the said amount along with interest nor they are developing the site in question. Hence, respondents sent demand notice to the appellants on 4.7.2013, calling upon them to refund the amount deposited with them along with interest. But, there was no response. Accordingly, respondents filed consumer complaints seeking following reliefs;

"(i) Opposite Parties be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 28,22,950/- deposited by the complainant with them along with penal interest @ 16% per annum, with quarterly compounded, since as per terms and conditions of allotment letter, Annexure P-2, Opposite Parties were entitled to recover interest from the complainant at the aforesaid rate, in case there was delay by th