ORDER

Heard Mr. C.N. Sreekumar, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants and Mr. P.A. Noor Muhamed, Advocate, for the respondents.

2. Joy Kaliyavumkal and Mrs. Chinnamma Joy (the complainants) have filed FA/401/2008 from the order of Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, dated 25.06.2008, passed in Original Petition No.108 of 2000, partly allowing the complaint and directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.402192/- as compensation for delayed possession, Rs.200000/-, for promised amenities and Rs.125000/- as costs for repairs. In the appeal, they have prayed for enhancement of compensation on various head along with interest and for directing the respondents to execute conveyance for undivided share in entire 103 cents of land according to the agreement, instead of 42 cents of land as executed on 07.03.1998.

3. Hardy T. George and Lidy T. George (the appellants in FA/402/ 2008) filed OP/109/2000 and H.V. Hariharan and Shanta Hariharan (the appellants in F.A./403/2008) filed OP/93/2000, and one Mrs. Radha Ramachandran filed OP/15/2001 (no appeal filed), for similar reliefs against same opposite parties, in respect of same housing project. State Commission consolidated and tried all the four complaints together and decided by a common order dated 25.06.2008, from which above three appeals have been filed. As such these appeals were consolidated and heard together and are being decided by a common order.

4. In order to appreciate the controversy, the facts of OP/108/2000 are being given. Joy Kaliyavumkal and Mrs. Chinnamma (the appellants) filed OP/108/2000 for directing the respondents (i) to pay Rs.100000/- as compensation for mental agony, Rs.402192/- as interest @12% per annum from 01.03.1996 to 31.06.1998 as compensation for delayed possession, Rs.18500/- as charges for polish and painting, Rs.45000/- for rectification works in the flat, Rs.1000000/- for rectification works in the building, Rs.200000/- for not providing promised amenities, Rs.10000/- for non-payment of building tax and Rs.100000/- for loss of security of the building (total Rs.1775692/-), (ii) cost of litigation, (iii) to execute sale deed in respect of remaining area of undivided share of 103 cents, comprised in survey No.42/6 & 63/7 of Edappally South village, (iv) to remove all constructions, protrusions and additions, raised apart from the approved plan, (v) to provide proper passage through southern side, (vi) not to obstruct the complainants from the benefits available to the building including the well, transformer, pump set etc., (vii) to evict all commercial lessees, (viii) to provide central reception on ground floor, exclusive play area for children, swimming pool, health club, gym, common guest room on 10th floor, Cable TV, telephone intercom connection, round the clock security, tennis court, shuttle court, recreation facility, laundry and locker facility, (ix) to provide corporation water connection, (x) to rectify defects in septic tank and soak pits, (xi) to rectify leakage of all water pipes and (xii) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

5. Joy Kaliyavumkal and Mrs. Chinnamma stated that M/s. Mangalam Homes and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. (respondent-1) (the builder) was a company, registered under Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of development and construction of building and selling its unit to the prospective buyers. M.C. Varghese (father of respondents-2 to 5) was its Managing Director. Sabu Varghesee, Sajan Varghesee, Saji Varghese and Biju Varghesee (respondents-2 to 5) were owners of the land admeasuring 103 cents situated in Survey No.42/5, 42/6, 63/7, 63/12-A & 12-B of Edappally South village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam district. The builder launched a project of group housing in the name of “Mangalam Towers” and made wide publicity that licence and building plan for construction of two multi-storeyed buildings having plinth