Adherence to the payment plan is essential, and defaulting parties may not be entitled to interest or compensation.

ORDER :

Mr. Justice V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member-Appellants/Complainants being aggrieved by order dated 27.11.2013 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (for short, ‘State Commission’) in Consumer Complaint No. 62 of 2013 have filed the present first appeal.

2. Appellants’ case is that in the year 2010, Respondent/Opposite Party advertised plots situated within the revenue estate of Mullanpur, LPA (GMADA) District SAS Nagar, Punjab. It was stated that representative/official of the respondent, assured the appellants that all work of the project, including clear demarcation of plots, would be completed, before handing over the allotment letter. It was further stated that the appellants jointly booked one plot measuring 300 sq. yards @ Rs. 18,000 per sq. yard (including EDC and IDC) and also deposited 25% of the total cost of the plot, which was Rs. 13,50,000 on 6.12.2010. Further, the appellants deposited the next instalment of 15% of Rs. 8,10,000 on 29.6.2011. It was further stated that appellant No. 1 was intimated the date of draw of lots being 12.12.2011. Appellant No. 1 was provisionally allotted plot No. 903 measuring 301 sq. yards, vide letter dated 12.12.2011. It was further stated that appellants received letter dated 5.1.2012 from the respondent, asking them to pay next instalment of 10% of the total cost, which was replied to by them vide letter dated 6.2.2012. It was further stated that instead of carrying out any development at the site, respondent sent reminders dated 23.2.2012, 13.3.2012, 1.5.2012, 14.6.2012 and 11.7.2012, which were replied to by the appellants. Thereafter, appellants again received demand letter dated 27.8.2012 whereby respondent had threatened to levy penalty @ 18% to 24% per annum in case of delay in the said payment. It was further stated that the sole intention of respondent was to grab money of the appellants and development of the site was not at all on its agenda. It was further stated that the respondent did not even fulfil the mandatory requirements, which must be completed before the development work could commence at the site. The appellants sent a detailed reply dated 30.9.2012 whereby respondent was requested to return the amount along with interest @ 24% per annum or to develop the site and accept the instalments without interest because of delay, on the part of the respondent itself. Thereafter, respondent sent demand letter dated 26.9.2012 whereby it threatened to cancel the allotment of the plot, on failure to deposit the requisite amount, which was duly replied by the appellants vide letter dated 5.10.2012. It was further stated that despite the fact that a period of 18 months for handing over the possession from the date of signing of allotment letter lapsed on 12.5.2013, still there was no development at the site. It was further stated that appellants were facing hard time as their hard earned money including retiral benefits were deposited with the respondent. The appellants wrote letter dated 2.4.2013 to the respondent, seeking refund of the amount, deposited by them with it along with interest @ 24% per annum but it did not reply to the same. It was further stated that the cause of action was a continuing one, as the delivery of plot was still not given nor any development made at the site. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission of the respondent amounted to the deficiency in service, and unfair trade practice, on the part of the respondent. When the grievance of the appellants was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short as ‘Act’) was filed seeking directions to the respondent to refund the amount deposited by the appellants, along with interest @ 24% p.a. or carry out development in a time bound manner and fix the date of pos