ORDER

Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member.—Heard Mr. Maneesh Gumber, Advocate, for the complainant and Ms. Medhya Ahluwalia, for the opposite party.

2. Mrs. Anuja Jain has filed the aforementioned complaint for directing the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as the builder) (i) to refund her principal amount of Rs.6849501/-, (ii) to pay interest of Rs.2358547/-, on the aforesaid amount till the date of filing the complaint, (iii) to pay future interest @15% compoundable till its realization, (iv) to pay compensation of Rs.7000/- per sq.yard, amounting to Rs.2394000/- for opportunity loss, harassment, mental agony suffered as a result of consistent follow up at various levels (v) to pay Rs.1/- lacs as the cost of the litigation and (vi) any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of case.

3. 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 the business of development and construction of residential and commercial plots/buildings and selling its unit to the prospective buyers. The builder launched a project of integrated township in the name of “Brahma City” in Sectors-60, 61, 62 and 65, Gurgaon, Haryana. On coming to know about this project, the complainant booked a residential plot on 31.10.2012 and gave a cheque of Rs.2505150/- as booking amount. The builder allotted Plot No. Y-70, (approximate area 342.056 sq. yard, total sale price Rs.25055602/-) on 16.01.2013. Along with Booking Form, ‘Payment Plan’ having two options i.e. (i) ‘Down Payment Plan’ and (ii) ‘Instalments Payment Plan’ was supplied. The complainant opted for ‘Instalments Payment Plan’. The complainant deposited Rs.2505150/-, vide cheque No.739786 dated 31.10.2012, Rs.2500000/-, vide cheque No.739789 dated 22.12.2012, Rs.1258751/-, vide cheque No.739790 dated 22.12.2012 and Rs.585600/-, vide cheque No.739793 dated 04.03.2013. The license of the builder to develop township of “Brahma City” was challenged in C.W.P. No.27665 of 2013, before High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Due to which, the builder could not start any development work on the spot. However, the builder issued a demand letter dated 05.02.2013, showing dues of Rs.3676759/- upon the complainant. The builder concealed the correct fact throughout for not proceeding with the development work. As development work was not going on, as such, the complainant stopped payment after 04.03.2013. Time to time, the complainant inquired about the progress of the work and the builder gave some assurance for delivery of possession as early as possible. The complainant received a letter of the builder dated 28.08.2013, stating that they were waiting for zoning clearance, which might be received by September/October, 2013 and again demand for completing 35% of sale price was made. The builder, vide letter dated 16.05.2014, invited the objection/suggestion for revision of demarcation plan, which was objected by the complainant by letter dated 12.06.2014. The complainant, vide letters dated 22.08.2014, 23.08.2014, 19.09.2014 and 23.09.2014 asked for refund of her money. The complainant also wrote letters dated 09.01.2015 to District Town Planner (HQ) and District Town Planner, Gurgaon for directing the builder to return her money. High Court of Punjab and Haryana, vide judgment dated 05.02.2015, quashed the licence of the builder. On coming to know about the judgment of High Court, the complainant, vide letter dated 24.02.2015, requested for return of her money as the development licence had been quashed. The builder vide letter dated 05.03.2015, informed that they had challenged the order of High Court in Supreme Court. The builder, vide letter dated 16.04.2015 and email dated 19.05.2015, informed that DTPC had initiated action, for review of the licence, in pursuance of the order of High Court. The complainant was not satisfied with the explanation of the builder and filed this complaint