IMPORTANT POINTS
1) Parties are bound by terms and conditions of the agreement or contract
2) In terms of clause 8 of the Tripartite Agreement dt. 21.02.2015, liability to refund the loan amt. which was disbursed to Opp. party no.1 is that of Opp. party no. 1.
3) Complainants had no liability in terms of Tripartite Agreement to pay the loan amt. to the bank on cancellation

ORDER

Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member—The case of the complainants in brief is that they were aspiring of owning a house of their own and impressed by the advertisement claim of Opposite Party No.1 / Builder, they had booked a flat for themselves. They were also informed by opposite party no.1 during interaction that opposite party no.2, HDFC, has approved the said housing project and was offering loans to the prospective home buyers. Impressed by the impressive promise made by the opposite parties, the complainants booked a flat in the housing project, called, ‘Sunworld Arista’ located at Sector 168, Plot No.GH-lC, Noida Expressway, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. The total consideration price of the said flat was Rs.1,36,76,375/-. The complainants entered into a Builder Buyer Agreement with opposite party no.1 who was the builder on 20.02.2015 and paid a sum of Rs.11,43,381/- towards the booking amount. Thereafter, they were allotted apartment no. T-1/1502 on 15th floor of Tower-1. On 21.02.2015, a supplementary agreement was also entered into with the opposite party no.1. Under this supplementary agreement, the complainants were given an option to cancel the allotment of the apartment on expiry of 24 months from the date of disbursement of the bank loan amount by a notice to be served 30 days prior to the date of expiry of 24 months. As per clause 6 of the said supplementary agreement, the opposite party no.1 had undertaken to pay the Pre –EMIs to opposite party no.2. Also, under clause 7 and 9 of the said supplementary agreement, the opposite party no.1 had undertaken to pay the entire loan advance plus taxes, if any, to opposite party no.2 in case the complainants opt to cancel the allotment in terms of supplementary agreement and in that eventuality, the opposite party no.1 had promised to return the entire booking amount of Rs.11,43,381/- alongwith interest @ 10% amounting to Rs.7,71,750/-, totaling to Rs.19,15,131/- On the same day i.e. 21.02.2015, a Tripartite Agreement between the complainants, opposite party no.1 and opposite party no.2 was also entered into whereby opposite party no.2 had agreed to provide a loan of Rs.1,02,00,000/-. It is contended by the complainants that as per clause 8 of Tripartite Agreement, in case of cancellation of allotment for any reason whatsoever, it was incumbent upon the opposite party no.1 to refund the entire loan amount to opposite party no.2. The entire loan amount was disbursed in the month of February, 2015. The opposite party no.1, however, had failed to complete the construction of the said property within the stipulated period and even after expiry of 22 months from the disbursal of the loan, the project was nowhere near completion. Exercising its right under the supplementary agreement, the complainants wrote a letter dated 14.12.2016 to opposite party no.1 whereby the allotment / booking of the apartment was cancelled. Opposite party no.2 duly was informed of the cancellation of the allotment / booking of the said flat. The complainants also demanded refund of the advance payment made alongwith interest as promised by opposite party no.1. The opposite party no.1 replied it vide email dated 15.12.2016 and requested for an extension of 12 months for giving the possession and promised that the additional burden on account of EMIs to opposite party no.2 would be borne by it. The complainants vide their email dated 16.12.2016 refused to accede to this request of opposite party no.1 and again asked for the refund of the promised amount. No reply, however, was received from opposite party no.1 and, thereafter, a reminder email on 20.12.2016 was also sent. Thereafter, again an email dated 22.01.2017 was sent whereby attention of opposite party no.1 was brought to clause 7 of supplementary agreement. The complainants received a letter dated 24.01.2017 from opposite party no.1 wherein opposite party no.1 had stated that it would continue to pay EMIs to opposite party no.2. It is submitted that