IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Possession - If the developer fails to deliver possession of the allotted plot/flat within the stipulated time, the allottee is under no obligation to accept an alternate plot.
(2) Interest - When interest is awarded by way of damages awarding additional compensation is unjustified.

ORDER

The present Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 09.02.2018 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred to as “State Commission”), whereby the Complaint filed by Mrs. Harjit Kuar Sidhu (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) was allowed and Krishan Kumar Aggarwal and Kamal Kishore Gupta, Directors of M/s. Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd., were directed to refund the amount of Rs.46,05,907.42P, alongwith interest @12% per annum from the respective various dates of payment till realization to the Complainant. They were also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment to the Complainant.

2. Brief facts of the case are that vide allotment letter dated 19.04.2010, the Complainant was allotted a Plot No. 643 measuring 297.04 sq. yard in the Residential Housing Project known as ‘Omaxe Chandigarh Extension’ to be developed by M/s. Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd. (earlier known as M/s. Golden Peak Township Private Limited), (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant Builder) for a total sale consideration of Rs.46,24,717.42Ps. As per terms of the Allotment letter, the Appellant Builder was to complete the development of the plot/project within 18 months or within an extended period of six months from the date of signing the allotment letter, meaning thereby that the possession of the developed plot was to be delivered by 19.04.2012. Despite depositing a sum of Rs.46,06,845/-, i.e., 95% of the sale consideration by the Complainant, the Appellant Builder failed to deliver the possession of the Plot within stipulated period. The Complainant sent e-mail on 20.09.2013 regarding delay in delivery of possession, followed by reminder dated 26.09.2013, but no satisfactory reply was ever given by the Appellant Builder. However, surprisingly, on 16.12.2015, instead of delivering possession of the Plot, in question, the Appellant Builder unilaterally changed the Plot and re-allotted some other plot (No.562/P-2) of a smaller size measuring 282.45 sq.yds. to the Complainant, without her prior approval or consent. Without entering into any fresh Agreement, the Appellant Builder demanded Rs.2,09,073/- from the Complainant, which was duly deposited by her on 06.01.2017. It was further averred that layout plans submitted by the Appellant Builder were approved by the competent authorities with effect from 09.07.2010 to 10.06.2014 and the zoning plans were approved between 05.08.2011 to 26.03.2015. Environment Clearance to the said project of the Appellant Builder was granted, vide letter dated 25.03.2015, subject to compliance of certain terms and conditions. However, the Appellant Builder has not got any certificate from the Punjab Pollution Control Board with regard to installation of STP before the Project was commissioned for operation. Even as on 24.09.2014, they did not have permanent electricity connection issued by the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, as only temporary connection was issued to them on 24.09.2014. It was further averred that the total area of the said project was 592.463 acre, whereas GMADA has issued only Partial Completion Certificate dated 10.07.2015 with respect to selected area of 178.78 acre, which forms only 30% of the total area of the said Project. Consequently, the Complainant served legal notice upon the Opposite Parties on 20.05.2017, seeking refund of the amount deposited by her, along with interest and compensation, but in vain. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Appellant Builder, Mr. Krishan Kumar Aggarwal and Mr. Kamal Kishore Gupta, both Directors of the Appellant Builder, before the State Commission.

3. The Appellants contested the Complaint before the State Commission by submitting that that the plot, in question, was purchased by the complainant for commer