IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Existence of an Arbitration Clause in the agreement is not a bar to resolve this dispute by this Commission.
(2) Act and conduct of opposite parties No.1 & 3 a clear case of misrepresentation and deception.
(3) Builder bound to compensate for the loss and injury suffered by the complainant for failure to deliver the possession.

JUDGMENT

Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President—The complainant has filed this complaint, under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, “the Act”), against the opposite parties, seeking following directions to them:

i) to refund the principal amount of ¹ 50,05,000/-, along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum (¹ 33,14,684/- up to 10.11.2019) from respective dates of deposits till the date of actual refund. The total amount, along with interest up to 10.11.2019, comes to ¹ 83,19,684/-;

ii) to pay compensation of ¹ 1,00,000/- on account of mental and physical harassment as well as monetary loss suffered by the complainant;

iii) to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of escalation of prices and construction material;

iv) to pay Rs. 55,000/- towards litigation expenses;

Totaling: Rs. 85,74,684/-.

v) It has also been prayed that compensation under Section 14 (hb) of the Act may also be awarded, on account of unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite parties with large number of persons; and

vi) to award any other relief, as may be deemed fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Facts of the Complaint

2. Brief facts, as set out in the complaint, are that opposite parties No.1 & 2 launched a Mega Residential Housing Project in the revenue estates of villages Salamatpur, Dhodemajra & Saini Majra in Mullanpur Planning Area, GMADA, S.A.S. Nagar. The application submitted by opposite parties No.1 & 2 for grant of package of incentives for setting up that project was considered by the Empowered Committee, Punjab under Industrial Policy, 2009 and, accordingly, the project was approved by that Committee on 21.06.2010. Letter of Intent dated 25.05.2011 was issued by the Chief Administrator, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, Mohali (in short, “PUDA”) for 168.64 acres of land, jointly in the names of opposite parties No.1 & 2. Thereafter, Change of Land Use (CLU) dated 17.11.2011 for 229.77 acres of land was issued to them. Additional CLU dated 14.05.2012 was issued for 26.41 acres of land. Another additional CLU dated 25.06.2013 was issued for 23.75 acres of land. In this process, the CLU for 279.93 acres of land was issued jointly in the names of opposite parties No.1 & 2. Against that CLU, layout of 276.61 acres was approved by the Chief Town Planner, Mohali, vide letter dated 08.05.2014. Thereafter, the Government of Punjab issued Notification dated 06.08.2014, vide which the project area to the extent of 219.92 acres was exempted from provisions of Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (in short, “PAPRA”), except Sections 5(9), 6 to 20 and 32 to 39. Against the approval of layout of 276.61 acres, opposite parties No.1 & 2 were permitted to develop an area only to the extent of 219.92 acres of land. Thus, an area of 56.69 acres of land has not been exempted from provisions of PAPRA. Plot of the complainant falls in Phase-II of the said project. As per Clause No.4 (v) of the Letter of Intent dated 25.05.2011, opposite parties No.1 & 2 were specifically restrained from not advertising/launching and collecting money from the general public till the layout plan is cleared by the competent authority and exemption under Section 44 of PAPRA is issued by the Government. As per Clause No.8 of the Layout Plan dated 08.05.2014 also, opposite parties No.1 & 2 were directed to develop the site, sell the plots, advertise the project etc. only after obtaining the exemption from provisions of PAPRA. Environmental Clearance for the said project has been granted only on 16.01.2015 by State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Punjab; that too for Phase-I and not Phase-II. Thus, till 16.01.2015, the opposite parties were not competent to break/dig the earth and commence development at the site. However, in violation of aforesaid letters and notification, the opposite parties launched the project namely “Muirwoods”, Eco-City, New Chand