ORDER

These cross appeals have been filed under Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘the Act’) assailing the Order dated 26.09.2022 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’) in complaint No. 10 of 2022.

2. Firoz Ahmad, the complainant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘complainant’) has filed appeal no. 816 of 2022 for enhancement in compensation while Paramount Propbuild Pvt. Ltd and its Director Mr. Mukesh Kumar Agrawal, the opposite parties before the State Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ‘builder’), have filed appeal No. 935 of 2022 for setting aside the Order dated 26.09.2022 of the State Commission.

3. On the final date of hearing i.e. 06.11.2023, it was seen that vide order dated 15.09.2023, a final opportunity was granted to the Paramount Probuild Pvt. Ltd. to be represented on the next date of hearing and file their short synopsis of arguments. They were not present and had also not filed their short synopsis.

4. We have heard the complainant in person and perused the material available on record.

5. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the complaint by the complainant, are that the complainant had booked a residential villa in the Project ‘Paramount Golfforeste’ situated in Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, with the builder company, for a total sale consideration of Rs.47,22,552/-, as per the allotment letter dated 10.06.2011. The complainant paid a total amount of Rs.51,63,148/- as per the demand raised by the builder company. The complainant was allotted unit No. B-294 having super area of 2452 sq. ft. As per the terms and conditions specified in the allotment letter, the construction work of the unit was to be completed and physical possession thereof was to be delivered to them within 30 months from the date of the allotment latter i.e. on or before 10.12.2013. However, on 09.07.2013 the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, against the illegal demand letter by the builder. Thereafter, vide a letter dated 08.09.2014 builder issued a cancellation letter cancelling the allotment of the said unit. However, the possession of the unit was not delivered till 2015 and thereafter, a settlement agreement was entered between the parties and the same unit was re-allotted to the complainant. The relevant portion of the settlement agreement is reproduced below:

“3. That, after the dismissal of the complaint by Ld. DCDRF, Second Party had cancelled the bookings of above units in the name of First party vide its letter dated 28.08.2014 and allotted the above units on 06.09.2014 in the name of third persons. However, it is hereby agreed and assured that the Second Party will take back the above units from the existing allottee and thereafter will re-allot the same units in the name of First Party after the withdrawal of the above appeals by the First Party.”

6. It is averred before the State Commission that despite the settlement dated 23.07.2015 and the fact that the complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 51,63,148/- to the builder, the builder failed to handover the possession of the said villa till pronouncement of order by the State Commission. Moreover, the complainant duly purchased stamp papers of Rs.2,33,500/- and sent letters dated 25.12.2015 & 25.01.2016 to the builder seeking possession of the said unit as per the settlement agreement arrived between the parties but was of no avail. It is further stated that even after issuance of Occupancy Certificate by competent authority in year 2015, the builder company failed to deliver the actual, valid and physical possession of the said villa to the complainant.

7. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission.

8. The builder contested the complaint by filing their written statement stating that the settlement agreement was arrived between the parties on 23.07.2015 and the complainant had made payment o