ORDER :

1. By this order, we propose to dispose of the aforesaid five consumer complaints. Arguments were heard in common, in the above cases, as the issues involved therein, except minor variations, here and there, of law and facts are the same. Out of the said five complaints, possession has been offered to the complainants, on 30.6.2017 (as per complainants on 24.10.2017), only in complaint case bearing No. 783 of 2017, and in the remaining four complaint cases, it has been candidly admitted by the opposite parties, in their written replies, that possession in respect of the units therein, has not been offered. In all the five complaints, the complainants have sought delivery of actual physical possession of their respective units, along with compensation, by way of interest; compensation for mental agony and physical harassment; litigation expenses, etc. At the time of arguments, on 4.7.2018, it was agreed between the contesting parties, that, in view of above, all these complaints can be disposed of, by passing a consolidated order. To dictate order, facts are being taken from consumer complaint bearing No. 711 of 2017 titled as Goldy Chadha vs. Puma Realtors Private Limited.

2. This complaint is being contested by the complainant, through his Special Power of Attorney Holder namely Sh. Gurpreet Singh, his brother-in-law. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant, seeking possession of the flat bearing No. 001, 4th Floor, Tower FRANGIPANI Court B, measuring 1511 square feet, purchased by him, in the project of the opposite party, launched by it, under the name and style ‘IREO Rise’, Sector 99, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab. It was specifically stated that despite the fact that the opposite party had received substantial amount of Rs. 54,26,246 against total sale consideration of Rs. 57,16,382.37, paid for the period from December 2011 to January 2015 (as is evident from statement of account at page 165 of the file), it failed to offer and deliver possession of the unit, in question, within a period of 30 months, as committed by them, vide Clause 13.3 of the Agreement dated 16.1.2012 i.e. on or before 15.7.2014, for want of construction and basic amenities. It was further stated that for making payment towards price of the said unit, the complainant has availed housing loan to the tune of Rs. 45 lacs, from HDFC Limited, which fact is evident from Tripartite Agreement dated 23.3.2012 Annexure C-13. It was further stated that, besides as above, in order to attract the customers, the opposite party, in the first instance, had advertised that construction of the said units, will be undertaken by a renowned Company called L & T, however, later on, it (opposite party) withdrew it and engaged some local builders, as a result whereof, construction at the site did not take place, as per schedule, and project could not be completed, in time. It was further stated that funds collected from the buyers of the said project, were diverted to another project, by the opposite party. It was further stated that there was a willful and intentional delay on the part of the opposite party, in not offering and delivering actual physical possession of the unit, in question, to the complainant. It was further stated as per Clause No. 20 of the said Agreement, time was essence in making payment of instalments and as per Clause 13.4, the Company was liable to pay delay compensation @ Rs.7.50 per sq. ft. per month of the super area of the unit, in the event of delay in handing over possession. It was further stated that the opposite party was trying to justify the delay in offering possession under the garb of Clause 13.4, which is most inadequate. It was further stated that, as per terms and conditions of the Agreement, in case of delay in making payment towards price of the said unit, the opposite party was charging heavy rate of intere