The main legal point established in the judgment is that the title of the plots remained with the seller, and the opposite parties were held liable for deficiency in service, leading to the award of compensation to the complainant.

JUDGMENT

P.S. Rana (R), President - Present consumer complaint is filed under section 17 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes. that opposite party No.1 planned to develop a colony in the financial year 2005-06 with approximately 400 flats in the name of Garden Valley. It is further pleaded that opposite parties No.2 & 3 collaborated with opposite party No.1 and undertook to sell 100 flats and consequently they purchased 100 flats in between December 2005 to March 2007 by paying earnest money to opposite party No.1. It is further pleaded that opposite party No.1 purchased land measuring 35 bighas and 5 biswas at Village Bhatolikalan Tehsil Nalagarh District Solan H.P. It is further pleaded that opposite party No.1 also acquired licence from H.P. Government for setting up colony namely Garden Valley.

2. It is further pleaded that due to dispute between the opposite parties No.2 & 3 opposite parties were unable to sell 100 proposed flats and they requested the opposite party No.1 to convert the flats into plots. It is further pleaded that opposite party No.1 agreed with the proposal of opposite parties No.2 & 3 and thereafter opposite party No.1 converted the 400 flats project into 110 residential/commercial plots on the same land. It is further pleaded that opposite parties No.2 & 3 were allotted eleven plots i.e. Plot No. 7, 31, 44, 53, 56, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 50 in lieu of 100 flats by opposite party No.1. It is further pleaded that plots No. 7 and 31 were sold to the complainant by opposite parties No.2 and 3. It is further pleaded that allotment letter was issued. It is further pleaded that full payment was given as per agreement and despite receipt of full payment from the complainant opposite parties failed to complete the development work within 9 (Nine) years and failed to obtain the completion certificate and committed deficiency in service. It is further pleaded that possession of plots were not handed over to the complainant even despite numerous telephonic calls and letters and several visits to the office of opposite parties. It is further pleaded that legal notice was also issued by complainant for transfer of plots No.7 & 31.

3. It is further pleaded that opposite party No.1 vide letter dated 07.05.2015 requested the complainant to visit the Chandigarh office with all original documents for transfer of plots No. 7 & 31. It is further pleaded that thereafter opposite party No.1 issued allotment/transfer letter on dated 06.06.2015. It is further pleaded that opposite party No.1 changed the terms and conditions of allotment letter. It is further pleaded that in the initial agreement possession was to be delivered by 15.12.2007. It is further pleaded that complainant vide letter dated 19.11.2015 requested the opposite party No.1 to hand over the possession of plots No. 7 & 31 so that complainant could start the construction work. It is further pleaded that opposite party No.1 vide letter dated 05.05.2016 informed the complainant about the internal dispute between the opposite parties No.2 & 3 with regard to accounts matter. It is further pleaded that opposite parties despite the receipt of full and final payment of sale of plots vide agreement dated 26.09.2007 did not deliver the possession of the plots to the complainant and committed deficiency in service.

4. It is further pleaded that complainant has already made full and final payment of plots No. 7 & 31 on dated 01.12.2009. It is further pleaded that due to delay in delivery of possession of plots to the complainant costs of construction has almost increased and complainant would face difficulty to complete the construction work within his limited resources. It is further pleaded that opposite parties have diverted the money collected from the complainant as well as other similar purchasers in some other projects. Complainant sought relief to the effect that opposite parties be