IMPORTANT POINT
Buyer is entitled to full refund of deposited amount in event of default in possession of unit.

ORDER

AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM, VSM (RETD.), Member—The two Appeals, bearing Nos. FA/669/2018 and FA/670/2018 were filed by Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd & Anr (hereinafter referred to as the “Appellants”/ “Opposite Parties”) against Paramjit Singh & Abhinav Gupta. (hereinafter referred to as the “Respondents”/ “Complainants”). These appeals challenge the Orders dated 14.11.2017 in (1) CC/197/2017 and (2) CC/198/2017 respectively, which were passed by State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”). The State Commission had partly allowed both the Complaints.

2. Since the facts and question of law involved in both Appeals are substantially similar, except for minor variations in the dates, events and unit numbers, these Appeals are being disposed of by this common Order. Nevertheless, for ease of reference, First Appeal No. 669 of 2018 shall be considered as the lead case, and the facts outlined below are derived from Consumer Complaint No.197/2017

3. Brief relevant facts of the case are that the Respondent/ Complainant Paramjit Singh, sought to secure his livelihood through self-employment, applied to purchase a Commercial Shop/Office, bearing No. Office-1104-A, on 11th Floor, admeasuring 706.12 square feet (hereinafter referred to as the Unit) in the Appellants/ Opposite Parties Project called “India Trade Towers, Chandigarh Extension”, situated at Mullanpur, LPA (GMADA), District SAS Nagar, Mohali Punjab. He paid Rs.3,22,299 as booking amount by cheque on 20.10.2010.

4. The Agreement-Cum-Allotment Letter (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Agreement’) was executed on 05.12.2010. Total Sale Price of the shop/office space was Rs. 35,54,196.03 inclusive of PLC, Maintenance Security, and additional cost. The payment plan opted for was Combo Plan (Plan C). As per Clause 26(a) of the said Agreement, the construction was supposed to be completed within 30 months, and possession was to be delivered by 4.6.2013.

5. Subsequently, the OPs issued addendum to allotment letter/agreement dated 07.01.2011(erroneously mentioned as 07.01.2010), wherein they promised to compensate the Complainant with Rs.15,320.37 per month upon the payment of 55% of the BSP and 50% of all additional charges (totaling Rs.16,71,314.65). Thereafter, the Respondent/Complainant made timely payment from 2010 to 2016 and paid total amount of Rs.30,78,250 which was over 95% of the total unit cost.

6. However, it was alleged that the project was not completed within the time period promised, and the OPs have not offered possession of the unit to the Complainant. Also, necessary permissions, certificates and sanctions for the project were not obtained, even though the stipulated possession date of 04.06.2013 has lapsed. Thereafter, the Respondent/Complainant forwarded a legal notice dated 08.03.2017, which invoked no response. Being Aggrieved, the Respondent/ Complainant filed a CC No.197 of 2017, before the State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh with prayer as under:—

(i) To refund the amount of Rs.30,78,250/- along with interest @18% p.a. from the respective dates of deposits till realization less compensation amount paid under the combo plan.

(ii) To pay compensation of Rs.5 lacs, on account of mental agony, physical harassment, financial loss caused to the complainant, escalation; deficiency in service, negligence and adoption of unfair trade.

(iii) To pay cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.1 lac to the complainant.

(iv) Or any other directions which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit.

7. The Opposite Parties, in their written version before the State Commission, raised several preliminary objections. Firstly, they claimed that the alleged dispute should be referred to Arbitration as per clause 47(c) of the allotment letter/agreement dated 05.12.2010. Secondly, they argued that the Commission lacks territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to hear the case. Thirdly, they contended