ORDER

Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member.—Heard Mr. Aditya Parolia, Advocate, for the complainants and Ms. Pallavi Sengupta, for the opposite party-1.

2. Opposite Party-1 has filed IA/3475/2020, on 09.03.2020, for leave to file additional documentary evidence, which is allowed. The documents attached with the application are taken on record.

3. The complainants have filed the aforementioned complaint for directing the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the builder) (i) to refund their principal amount of Rs.11900000/- along with interest @18% per annum, from the date of respective deposits till the day of its payment, (ii) to pay Rs.20/- lacs as the compensation, for mental agony and harassment, (iii) Rs.2/- lacs as the cost of the litigation and (iv) any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. The facts, as stated in the complaint and emerged from the documents attached with it, are that the builder was a company and engaged in business of development and construction of residential and commercial buildings and selling its unit to the prospective buyers. In the year 2012, the builder launched a project of group housing in the name of “RMZ Latitude” at village Hebbal, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluka, Karnataka. On coming to know about this project, the complainants booked a 4BHK flat on 30.04.2014 and gave a cheque of Rs.25/- lacs. The builder allotted Unit No. A-702, [tentative super area 3895 sq.ft. + 3 car parking spaces, basic sale price Rs.3.97/- crores, (total sale price of Rs.40931815/-)], Tower No.-A, in the project “RMZ Latitude”. Along with Booking Form, “Payment Plan” was supplied, under which Rs.25/- lacs had to be given at the time of booking, Rs.94.10 lacs at the time of the agreement and remaining amount on completion of construction. The complainants were asked to deposit Rs.94.10 lacs, which was deposited by them on 27.05.2014. However, Agreement to Sell was executed on 09.01.2015. As per clause-9 of the agreement, expected date of possession was 31.12.2014, subject to force majeure clause. Time to time, the complainants inquired about the possession of the flat and the builder gave some assurance for delivery of possession as early as possible. The complainants received a letter of the builder dated 08.06.2015, extending date of delivery of possession till 31.12.2015. The complainants made query about the status of construction. The builder, vide email dated 30.11.2015, informed the position of the construction and that fit out possession would be given from September, 2016. The builder, vide letter dated 31.03.2016, informed that due to restraint order of Assistant Executive Engineer, the construction was stopped for 253 days and now that order had been set aside by High Court and they had resumed the work and it would likely be completed till the end of December, 2016 to March, 2017. The builder again vide emails dated 19.04.2016 and 02.05.2016, informed that they would be able to give fit out possession till the end of December, 2016 to March, 2017. The complainants, vide emails dated 31.08.2016 and 07.09.2016, requested for return of their money. The builder did not respond. The complainants then gave legal notice dated 01.10.2016, terminating the agreement and demanding refund along with interest, damages etc. Then a meeting was held between the complainants and the officers of the builder. In that meeting, the complainants were informed that the construction had been completed and the builder had applied for “Occupation Certificate” and they were assured that after receiving “Occupation Certificate”, the builder would arrange a new buyer of the flat and the money would be returned to the complainants. The builder obtained “Occupation Certificate” on 17.03.2017 and vide letter dated 22.03.2017, offered possession to the complainants. The complainants, vide application dated 11.06.2017, referred the dispute to District Legal Services A