ORDER

These Appeals have been filed against the impugned Order dated 30.10.2018 passed by the Ld. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Circuit Bench at Nagpur in CC/14/31-35 and CC/14/45, which was dismissed.

2. The facts and question of law involved in these Appeals are similar in all cases except for minor variations in the dates, consideration amounts, and Flat numbers. Therefore these Appeals are being disposed off by this common Order. However, for the sake of convenience, FA/53/2019 is treated as the lead case, and the facts enumerated hereinafter are extracted from this Complaint.

3. The factual background, in brief, is that the original Opposite Party No. 2 assigned and transferred all its rights to design, finance, and develop a Township Project to the Opposite Party No. 1/Appellant. This project encompassed residential Apartments, commercial space, and other utilities on the specified land, and was supported by a Power of Attorney issued in favor of the Opposite Party No. 1 for development of the Project. The Opposite Party No. 1 subsequently launched a Mega Township Project named “First City” and promoted it extensively through various advertisements. Attracted by such advertisements, the Complainants applied to the Appellant on 28.04.2008, for allotment of an Apartment. In October 2008, the Appellant allotted Apartment Unit No. Prestige 2A1101 at First City MIHAN Nagpur to the Complainants and executed a Lease Agreement dated 31.10.2008. The total sale consideration was Rs. 53,02,318/- of which Rs. 22,64,724/- was paid by the Complainants. Despite this payment, no significant construction progress occurred. The Complainants, along with other Allottees, repeatedly visited the Appellant’s office to address the issue. In a communication dated 23.09.2009, the Appellant assured the Complainants that construction would commence on 28.09.2009, acknowledged the delays, and promised to deliver possession within 36 months. According to Clauses 5(1), (2), and (3) of the Lease Agreement, the Appellant was liable to pay liquidated damages at Rs. 2.50 per square foot per month if they failed to complete construction within the agreed period. However, the construction did not progress, leading the Complainants to issue a communication on 08.10.2009, indicating their decision to cancel/terminate the Lease Agreement and demanding a refund of their payment with interest at 18% per annum from the payment date. Due to the Appellant’s inaction, the Complainants and other Allottees personally visited the office to demand the refund with interest, and they were assured of such refund by the Appellant. The Complainants agreed to accept the refund in two instalments, receiving the first instalment of Rs. 15,85,307/- by cheque dated 12.10.2010, with a promise of delivery of the balance amount by the end of March 2011. Despite several correspondences, the balance amount was not paid. Consequently, the Complainants issued a Legal Notice dated 04.10.2013, calling upon the Appellant to pay the remaining balance of Rs.16,81,481.85/-. In response, the Appellant denied any liability. Aggrieved by the deficiency in service and unfair trade practices by the Opposite Parties, the Complainants filed their Complaint before the Ld. State Commission, Maharashtra, Circuit Bench at Nagpur.

4. The State Commission vide the impugned Order dated 30.10.2018 allowed the Complaints against the Opposite Party No. 1 and directed them to refund the amounts with interest @12% p.a., along with Rs. 1,00,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation cost to each Complainant, and dismissed the complaints against the Opposite Party No. 2. The relevant extracts of the impugned Order are set out as below—

19. So far as the responsibility of O.P. No. 2 is concerned, we find that when admittedly amounts as specified in the above table were paid by the respective complainants to the O.P. No. 1 only, no liability for refund of the amount