ORDER

AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM VSM (Retd.), Member—The present Consumer Complaint has been filed under Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) against the Opposite Party seeking to direct the OP:—

(i) Pass an order directing the Opposite Party, its agents, assigns and/or any person purporting to act in its behalf to refund the amount Rs.1,29,64,869/- paid by the Complainant for the Apartment in pursuance of the Agreement to Sale dated 27.12.2012 along with 18% interest from the date of deposit of each installment till the date of realization by the Complainants.

(ii) Pass an interim relief/order directing the Opposite Party, its agents, assigns and/or any person purporting to act in its behalf herein to deposit the amount Rs.1,29,64,859 paid by the Complainant for the Apartment in pursuance of the Agreement to Sale dated 27.12.2012 with the Hon’ble Forum so as to secure the rights of the complainants.

(iii) Pass an order directing the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to Complainant towards compensation for ‘unfair trade practices’ and ‘deficiency in service’ done by the Opposite Party which has caused physical and mental torture, agony, discomfort and undue hardship to the complainant and a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-to Complainant towards Litigation Cost.

(iv) Pass any other further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

2. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainants, are that Mr. Devanshu Bhatt and Mrs. Ruchi Gupta have booked Flat No. C-161 on the 16th floor, measuring 1714.67 sq. ft in “Raheja Revanta”, Sector-78, Gurugram, developed by M/s Raheja Developers Ltd. for a total cost of Rs.1,36,89,449. Sale Agreement was executed between the parties on 27.12.2012. Possession was promised within 48 months + 6 months grace period from the execution date i.e. by mid-2017. Payment plan was as per the Construction Linked Plan. They paid Rs.1,29,64,869/- (95% of the total cost), availing loan of Rs.1,06,10,000/- from ICICI Bank for meeting payment demands. The Opposite Party (OP) builder failed to deliver possession within the timeline, citing frivolous reasons such as presence of high-tension lines and continued to issue false and frivolous demand notices for full payment, despite non-completion of the project. The OP published advertisements promising timely possession to attract buyers, without requisite approvals in place. The delay was due to lack of timely clearances. Clauses in the Agreement granting unfettered discretion to the developer abused, causing financial and emotional distress. High-Tension lines cited as a reason for delays, although they were present before the project’s initiation. They sent a legal notice on 17.07.2017 demanding the refund of Rs.1,29,64,869/- along with interest to the OP due to all the illegal acts. But, the OP did not give any reply. Being aggrieved, they filed a consumer complainant seeking refund of Rs.1,29,64,869/- with 18% interest from the date of each instalment deposit until realization along with compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for unfair trade practices and deficiency in service and Litigation costs of Rs.5,00,000/-.

3. This complaint was contested by the OP by filing a written version and the preliminary objections claimed that the complainants are not “consumers” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the flat was booked as an investment for commercial purposes. The agreement contained an arbitration clause, barring the jurisdiction of the consumer forum. The claim was averred to be time-barred under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The OP emphasized that the agreement’s terms were mutually agreed upon, and the complainants cannot challenge them now. The OP further averred that the reliefs sought exceeded the forum’s jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. On merits, the OP acknowledged the delay but att