The main legal point established is that non-delivery of possession within the agreed timeframe constitutes deficiency in service, entitling the complainant to refund and compensation under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.—The complainant, Santosh Kumari, has filed this complaint, under Section 17(1) (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for the issuance of following directions to the opposite parties:-

(i) to refund the amount of Rs.34,17,251/-, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, from the date of respective deposits;

(ii) to pay Rs.5,00,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by her; and

(iii) to pay Rs.1,00,000/-, as litigation expenses.

She alleged therein that she was willing to own a residential apartment in Mohali for her personal use and for the use of her family and accordingly she applied for a residential flat, having super area of 1050 square feet in the complex, "Gardens", to be developed in the mega township to be known as "Uniworld City" in Sector 97, Mohali, by the opposite parties, by filling up the Application Form and depositing Rs.3,17,710/- on 26.04.2012. She purchased the apartment under "Construction Linked Plan" and was allotted flat No.0801 on 8th Floor, in Block No.A, Tower A-4, vide Allotment Letter dated 26.04.2012, for a total consideration of Rs.33,84,000/-. Regarding that apartment, agreement was executed between them on 04.05.2012 and as per Clause 4 (a) (i) of the agreement, the opposite parties agreed to deliver the possession of the flat within 36 months from the date of signing of the agreement itself. She kept on making payments, as per the demands made by the opposite parties and paid those amounts as per the following Table:-

In the month of January, 2016, she visited the site of the project and was shocked to see that the construction had been stopped; though the due date for the delivery of possession of the flat had already passed; which was 04.05.2015. Thus, the opposite parties committed deficiency in service. They are non-committal about the date of possession of the flat and she cannot be made to wait for indefinite period.

2. After the complaint was admitted and the complainant was permitted to proceed with the same, notices were sent to the opposite parties; who did not appear before this Commission, in-spite of their service and were proceeded against ex parte, vide order dated 30.09.2016.

3. To prove the allegations made in the complaint, the complainant proved on record her affidavit, Ex.C-A, and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-32.

4. We have carefully gone through the allegations made in the complaint, the evidence produced by the complainant in support of those allegations and have heard learned counsel on her behalf.

5. By referring to the allegations made in the complaint and the evidence produced for proving the same, it was