IMPORTANT POINT
A Consumer cannot be made to wait indefinitely or unreasonably.

ORDER

Dinesh Singh, Member

The instant Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, challenging the Order dated 27.09.2018 passed in Consumer Complaint No. 227 of 2018 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’.

2. The Appellants, Chandigarh Overseas Private Limited, were the Opposite Parties before the State Commission, and are hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Builder Co.’.

The Respondents, Mr. Amninder Deep Singh and Mr. Rajpreet Singh, were the Complainants before the State Commission, and are hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Complainants’.

3. Brief salient facts of the case, shorn of unnecessary details, are that the Complainants deposited Rs. 20,00,000/- with the Builder Co. with an application dated 10.05.2010 for allotment of a “Design Studio”, hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Unit’, in their “Industrial Knowledge (Fashion Technology) Park”, hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Project’.

A Buyer Developer Agreement, hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Agreement’, was executed between the Complainants and the Builder Co. on 10.05.2010.

Thereafter the Complainants deposited Rs. 13,00,000/- with the Builder Co. on 15.06.2010, bringing the total deposited amount to Rs. 33,00,000/-.

The agreed and assured date of completion of the Project, as written in the Agreement, was 31.03.2011.

The Builder Co. issued a “Provisional Allotment Letter” on 17.06.2011, in which it inter alia stated that “The Final Allotment and Possession will be subject to the Terms & Conditions, Rules and Regulations and directions issued by the department of Industries in its approvals and subsequent correspondence until now and to be issued in future.”.

The Builder Co. failed to make a “Final Allotment” or to deliver “Possession” of the Unit to the Complainants.

The Complainants filed Consumer Complaint No. 227 of 2018 before the State Commission on 27.03.2018.

4. We heard arguments from the learned Counsel for both sides, and perused the entire material on record, including inter alia specifically the impugned Order dated 27.09.2018 of the State Commission and the Memorandum of Appeal.

5. The State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 27.09.2018 had allowed the Complaint.

The Award made by the State Commission is reproduced below:

32. In view of our above discussion, this complaint is allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-

i) to refund Rs.33,00,000/- to the complainants along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the different dates of payment of different amounts till the date of payment;

ii) to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainants as punitive damages; and

ii) to pay Rs.50,000/-, as compensation for the harassment and mental agony suffered by them including cost of litigation.

However, the opposite parties shall be at liberty to deduct the amount of damages paid by them to the complainants as per clause 15 of the Buyer Developer Agreement, Ex.C-7, if any, after showing proof to the complainants about the payment of the same.

33. The opposite parties shall comply with the order within 30 days of the receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount of Rs.50,000/- as punitive damages and another amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation shall also carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this order till realization.

The State Commission has, in essence, directed the Builder Co. to refund the amount deposited by the Complainants (Rs. 33,00,000/-) with interest (@12% p.a.) along with punitive damages (Rs. 50,000/-) and compensation for harassment and mental agony including cost of litigation (Rs. 50,000/-).

6. The salient material chronology is as below: