IMPORTANT POINT
Long Delay - Heavy rain and change in foundation delay by the contractor, etc. cannot be a valid argument for such long delay.

ORDER

Sudip Ahluwalia, Member—The present batch of First Appeals has been filed by the Appellants against various Allottees Respondents challenging their respective impugned orders. Since the facts and questions of law involved in all the Appeals are similar, except for minor variations in the dates of events, amounts, etc., so these Appeals are being decided by this common order. However, for the sake of brevity, First Appeal bearing No. 2013 of 2018 is treated as the lead case and the facts enumerated hereinafter are taken from First Appeal bearing No. 2013 of 2018.

2. This Appeal challenges the impugned order dated 17.04.2018 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula in Consumer Complaint No.251 of 2016. Vide such order, the State Commission allowed the Complaint of the Respondent/ Complainant and ordered the Appellants/ Opposite Parties to pay interest @15% per annum from 08.12.2011 to 07.09.2014 on the amounts deposited by the Respondent/ Complainant from the dates of the respective deposits.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant, being lured by the advertisements of the Opposite Parties/Appellants vide advertisement dated 01.10.2005, had applied Fora Pent House – ‘B’ at AWHO, Sector 27, Panchkula. It was averred that the tentative cost was fixed at Rs.33.74 Lacs and the tentative date for completion was 2008. The Complainant was allotted a pent house-B unit vide booking letter dated 09.08.2006. It was further averred by the Complainant that he was offered a penthouse no. 806 on the 8th&9th floor, Block-G with parking space CPS vide booking letter dated 09.08.2006 with cost now being fixed at Rs.38,70,000/- excluding the parking with estimated completion time being 3 years. It was further averred that the Opposite Party increased the cost and extended the due date on various occasions. It was further averred that the Complainant was issued letter dated 03.01.2014 vide which possession was to be taken however, the Complainant was unable to take possession of the unit since it was incomplete and the material used was of inferior quality. It was further averred that the Complainant paid huge additional money of approximately 20 Lacs as the price of flat was Rs.33,74,000/- in the advertisement whereas the total sum paid by the Complainant was Rs.55,70,000/-. Hence, the complaint was filed by him before the State Commission claiming refund of Rs.20 Lacs, compensation and interest.

4. The Opposite Parties appeared before the State Commission and resisted the Complaint and denied all the material allegations made therein, thereby denying any deficiency in service on their part. It was contended by the Opposite Parties that their object was to provide dwelling units to serving and retired army personnel and their widows on ‘No Profit and No Loss Basis’. It was further contended that the Possession was handed over to the Complainant on 01.09.2014. It was further contended that the Complainant never raised any issue relating to the final cost or any other issues relating to the Pent House and the unit was taken by the Complainant without any protest. It was further contended that all the defects (if any) were rectified to the satisfaction of allottees before taking over the possession. It was further contended that the price of the units were tentative and were bound to escalate. It was further contended that a soil investigation was carried de-novo which resulted in restructuring and preparation of foundation de-novo causing substantial delay in commencement of work apart from attracting additional cost of Rs.3.66 crores. The foundation design and drawing were revised by the architects and structural engineers and the same were handed over to the contractor for execution in May, 2008. It was further contended that pursuant to the order of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court,