ORDER

Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Member.—The present First Appeal (FA) has been filed by the Appellant against Respondents as detailed above, under section 19 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 13.05.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 221/2012 inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 13.05.2015 passed by the State Commission in CC/221/2012.

2. The Appellants were Opposite Parties before the State Commission and the Respondents were Complainants in the said CC/221/2012 before the State Commission. Notice was issued to the Respondents on 01.07.2016. Parties filed their Written Arguments/Synopsis on 18.11.2016 (Appellants) and 07.10.2016 (Respondents) respectively.

3. The present Appeal has been filed with a delay of 73 days as pointed out by the Registry. IA/5912/2016 has been filed for Condonation Delay. Delay in filing the First Appeal is condoned after hearing both sides and after considering the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay and those adduced during the hearing.

4. Brief facts of the case as presented by the complainants and as emerged from the First Appeal, Order of the State Commission and other case records are that: -

The complainants/Respondents herein are Non-Resident Indian (NRI). On 20.06.2009, the complainants had booked Flat/Unit scheme of Opposite Party namely, “KINGSBURY TERRACE GARDEN” in TDI City, Kundli, Sonepat (Haryana) @2200/- per Sq.Ft. under construction linked plan along with 15% Registration Charges. Vide allotment letter dated 23.10.2010, a Unit No. TB-0603, admeasuring about 2400 sq.ft. in the said scheme of the OP was allotted to the Respondents and the complainants/Respondents deposited/paid total amount of Rs.37,25,346/- on various dates (till 20.12.2011), which was duly acknowledged by the OP-1. The agreement to sell dated 08.05.2009, proposed to give possession of the said flat to the complainants within 36 months from the date of the signing of the agreement to sell, i.e., by May 2012. The complainants received a letter dated 21.02.2012, of cancellation of provisional allotment of their unit from authorized person of OP-1 stating therein that due to non-payment of dues they have cancelled the provisional allotment of the unit, as per company’s policy, of the complainants. The OP-1 without informing or giving any notice to the complainants, cancelled the allotment in an arbitrary and illegal manner. On 22nd, 23rd and finally on 26th March 2012, Sh. Manmohan Singh, the representative of Complainants, visited the office of the OPs at G-7 Connaught Circus, who refused to listen to the complainants and threatened him also saying that there was nothing wrong in their actions. The OP also stated that the possession of the flat has been handed over to Sonia Verma (OP-4 before the District Forum). The OP thus failed in performing its part of the agreement even after receiving the consideration for the same. The complainants issued legal notice on 31.03.2012 and filed consumer complaint before the State Commission.

5. Vide Order dated 13.05.2015, the State Commission has allowed the complaint and directed the OP to a) to refund to the complainants the amount of Rs.37,25,346/- alongwith interest @9%; b) to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-; c) to pay litigation charges of Rs.10,000/-.

6. Appellant(s) have challenged the Order dated 13.05.2015 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

i) The impugned order is erroneous and liable to be set aside on account of the fact that the same is not a speaking order. The impugned order does not deal with any of the defenses raised by the Appellants. The impugned order thus, does not speak for itself, hence, cannot be sustained.

ii) The impugned order is erroneous as the same has been passed without any consideration to the factual matrix of the case. The State Commission