JUDGMENT

Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, (President).—The present complaint has been filed by the Complainant alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practices by the Opposite Party and has prayed the following reliefs:

a) Direct the Opposite Party for an immediate 100% refund of the total amount paid by the Complainant along with a penal interest of 18% per annum from the date of receipt of payments made to the Opposite Party;

b) Direct the Opposite Party to pay compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakh Only) to the Complainant for mental agony, harassment, discomfort and undue hardships caused to the complainant as a result of the above acts and omissions on the part of the Opposite Party;

c) Direct the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Only) to the Complainant towards litigation costs;

d) That any other and further relief in favour of the Complainant as the Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case.”

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present complaint are that in year 2013, the Complainant booked three units with the Opposite Party in a project named “114 Avenue,” situated at Sector-114, Village Bajghera, Gurugram, Haryana. The Complainant booked two units for residential purposes and one unit for earning livelihood through self-employment by renting it out. Being an elderly lady, the Complainant sought to secure a residence for her old age and a source of livelihood. The Complainant paid a total sum of Rs.2,43,92,121/- towards these three units, amounting to Rs.81,30,707/- for each unit. Consequently, the Opposite Party executed three Memorandums of Understanding, all dated 24.07.2013. Subsequently, the Opposite Party allotted three units, namely 5A-01, 5A-29, and 6A-30, each for a total consideration of Rs.78,40,000/-. The agreements, however, contained several one-sided and arbitrary clauses. As per Clause 1.4, in case of any delay in payment of the balance amount by the Complainant, the Opposite Party was entitled to charge interest at an exorbitant rate of 18% per annum for the first 30 days, and thereafter at a rate of 24% per annum, or even terminate the agreement. On the other hand, the agreements did not provide for any compensation to the Complainant in case of a delay in possession. The Opposite Party collected the entire sale consideration for the units from the Complainant prior to the execution of the agreements, leaving her with no choice but to sign the agreements as presented. Moreover, the agreements did not specify a definitive date for possession, to which the Complainant raised an objection. In response, the Opposite Party assured the Complainant that possession of the units would be handed over within three years from the date of the agreements. However, the Opposite Party has neither handed over possession of the units to the Complainant nor completed their construction till date. More so, the Complainant inquired about the status of the construction, the Opposite Party responded with false assurances and promises. Consequently, the Complainant vide letters dated 27.06.2015 and 28.03.2016, sought a refund of the amount paid towards the said units, as per Clause 4 of the agreement. Instead of addressing the Complainant’s grievances, the Opposite Party repeatedly extended the possession date under the pretext of supplemental Memorandums of Understanding dated 23.07.2015, 24.07.2016, and 24.07.2017. The Complainant also made several communications regarding the possession of the said units but the Opposite Party failed to provide any satisfactory response. Thus, the Complainant has approached this Commission, alleging a deficiency in services on the part of the Opposite Party.

3. The Opposite Party has contested the present case and raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the complaint. The counsel for the Opposite Party submitted that the Complainant is not a consumer under t