Court affirms jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act, establishes deficiency of service for failure to deliver possession, and directs refund with interest.

1. The present complaint has been filed before this commission under S.17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by Mr. Alok Arora and Ms. Seema Arora (hereinafter referred to as ˜complainants') against the TDI Infrastructure Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ˜opposite party') seeking following reliefs:
(a) Direct the opposite party to repay principle amount of Rs. 48,75,000 (Rupees Forty Eight lacs Seventy Five thousand Only.
(b) Direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 51,29,359 (Rupees Fifty One Lac Twenty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Nine Only) on the account of interest @ 21 % per annum from the date of payment till the date of filing of the present complaint. Also direct the opposite party to pay penden tilite and future interest @ 21% per annum compounded annually from the date of institution of this complaint till its actual realization to the complainants.
(c) Direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 3,81,662 (Rupees Three Lac Eighty One Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Two Only) to the complainants along with the interest @21 % per annum compounded from the date of institution of this complaint till its actual realization towards the service charges paid by the complainants to the authorized agent / subagent / broker of the opposite party and the interest accrued thereon till the date of filing of the present complaint.
(d) Direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 5,00,000 as compensations to the complainants on the account of mental tensions and agonies which the complainants had to undergo.
(e) Direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 1,10,000 to the complainants as cost of the present case.
(f) Any other relief or further relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the complainants.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present complaint are that the complainants booked a plot bearing No. A1-166 in September 2011 with the Opposite party in the project called Tucsan Royale at TDI City, Kundli, Sonepat, Haryana. Thereafter, plot buyer's agreement was executed between the parties on 30.12.2013. However, till date possession of the plot has not been handed over by the Opposite party. The complainants sent a legal notice dated 15.6.2016 asking for refund of Rs. 48,75,000 along with interest, to which opposite party vide letter dated 20.6.2016 offered alternate plot to the complainants. The complainants vide letter dated 28.6.2016 declined the offer of the opposite party and again requested for the refund of the amount already deposited by them along with interest, which is of no avail.
The complainants over the time had paid a sum of Rs. 48,75,000 to the Opposite party as and when demanded by them.

3. The Opposite party has contested the present case and raised some preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the complaint case. The Counsel for the Opposite party contended that this commission does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate this complaint as the dispute is with respect to sale or transfer of plot. He also contended that the plot has been purchased solely for the purpose of investment, merely for Commercial Purpose, hence, the complainants are not Consumer within the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 .

4. The Counsel for the Opposite party further contended that this commission does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate this complaint. Pressing the aforesaid objections, the Counsel appearing on behalf of th