IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Developer - In the present case, the developer is guilty of committing unfair trade practice as such, it is not entitled to forfeit any amount.
(2) Contractual obligation - That in the matter of contractual obligation, there is no scope for compensation for mental agony and harassment.

ORDER

Heard Mr. Deepak Kr. Khushalani, Advocate, for the complainant and Mr. Sameer Chaudhary, Advocate, for the opposite parties.

2. Above bunch of the complaints have been filed against same opposite parties in respect of same project “The Corridors”. The complainants in these complaints sought for the relief of refund while the opposite party claimed for forfeiture of “earnest money” as such these complaints are decided together. For appreciating the controversy between the parties, the facts of CC/107/2019 are mentioned in the judgment. Necessary facts of the complaints are given in a table below:—

3. Rupali Bahl has filed CC/107/2019, for directing the opposite parties to (i) refund Rs.5855264/- with interest @20% per annum from the date of respective deposit till the date of actual payment, (ii) pay Rs.500000/-, as compensation for mental agony and harassment and litigation cost; and (iii) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. In CC/107/2019, the complainant has stated that the opposite parties were companies, registered under the Companies Act, 1956. They were engaged in the business of development and construction of group housing project and selling its unit to the prospective buyers. Opposite parties-2 to 5 were the owners of the project land. Under a Collaboration Agreement dated 05.03.2013, between the opposite parties, the work of development, construction and sale etc. of the group housing project was assigned to IREO Grace Realtech Private Limited (the developer). The developer launched a group housing project, in the name of “The Corridors” at villages Dhumaspur and Maidwas, Golf Course Extension Road, Sector-67-A, Gurgaon, in the year 2012 and made wide publicity of its facilities and amenities. The developer invited booking applications and started collecting money before grant of development licence. The complainant approached the developer and inquired about the price of the flat. The developer informed that Rs.8750/- per sq.ft. as basic sale price the flat which included one car parking space, Rs.327.91 per sq.ft. as Development Charges, Rs.100/- per sq.ft. as Interest Free Maintenance Security, Rs.50/- per sq.ft. as Interest Bearing Replacement Fund and Rs.2.5 lacs