The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the respondent to provide promised amenities and the rights of the petitioners as consumers under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

ORDER :

V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1. Brief facts are that Petitioners/Complainants filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘Act’) against Respondent/Opposite Party alleging that they had given a bid for allotment of shop No. 5, HIMUDA Complex Housing Phase I & II, Baddi, District Solan, H.P. on lease basis for Rs. 34,80,000 and deposited Rs. 3,56,000 as 10% of the bid amount. Respondent confirmed the bid vide its letter dated 14.3.2008. Thereafter petitioners deposited 15% amount of the bid amount. At the time of auction, Mr. Sood, the Chief Engineer of respondent’s authority had assured the petitioners that possession of shop in question would be handed over after development of the complex within few months. After the auction, respondent issued schedule of payment to the petitioners and imposed interest @ 12% per annum on the instalments w.e.f. 13.3.2008, whereas the complex was not completely developed by that time. Thereafter, respondent vide letter dated 26.7.2008, offered to hand over the possession of the shop in question to the petitioners. The petitioners accepted symbolic possession of the shop on 12.8.2008 under protest as there were several deficiencies in completion of the complex. Petitioners also pointed out the deficiency in black and white to the respondent. However, actual physical possession remained with the respondent. Petitioners vide reminder dated 23.8.2008, again requested the respondent to fulfil the deficiencies as already pointed out vide letter dated 12.8.2008. Respondent vide letter dated 22.4.2009, admitted the deficiencies. Petitioners again vide letter dated 25.5.2009 appraised the respondent that certain deficiencies such as development of the complex, pavement and parking for vehicle, essential amenities, electricity transformer and water supply were not provided in the complex. The lease deed of the shop in question, as per direction of the respondent was also registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Nalagarh. Since, the actual physical possession of the shop in question was not handed over to the petitioners, therefore, respondent was not entitled to charge interest on the installments w.e.f. 13.3.2008. The petitioners also could not carry out business activities in the shop in question due to the aforementioned deficiencies. Hence, respondent is liable to pay damages/compensation to the petitioners.

2. Accordingly, petitioners prayed that respondent be directed to pay them compensation of Rs. 4,50,000 in addition to Rs. 2 lakh for having suffered loss due to idleness of their hard earned money and Rs. 25,000 as litigation expenses and further respondent be also directed to withdraw the letter for handing over possession of the shop in question and issue fresh letter to hand over possession after fully developing the shop and the complex. Lastly, respondent be stopped from charging interest w.e.f. 13.4.2008 till full development of the complex.

3. Respondent in its reply refuted the case of the petitioners and stated that petitioners took on lease the shop in question in a public auction for Rs. 34,80,000 on 26.2.2008. Further, it was alleged, that the Chief Engineer never gave assurance to the petitioners that possession of the shop in question would be handed over after development of the complex. It was further stated that in the advertisement of the public auction, it was specifically mentioned that the auction shall be on, “As is where is basis”. The petitioners were asked to deposit the price money in 3 instalments with interest @ 12 % per annum as per terms and condition of the lease. Thereafter, respondent issued allotment letter dated 30.6.2008. It was specifically denied that the complex was not developed. It was also denied that actual physical possession of the shop in question was not handed over to the petitioners. Respondent further alleged that in the letter of handing over possession it was stated by the petitioners that possessio