The court established that unfair trade practices by a builder can entitle a buyer to refunds under consumer protection laws.

1. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Advocate, for the complainant and Mr. A.R. Takkar, Advocate, for the opposite parties, through video conferencing.

2. Sh. Rajan Handa (the complainant) has filed this complaint for directing M3M India Private Limited and another (opposite - parties), (hereinafter referred to as the builder) (i) to refund the entire amount of Rs.46,36,730 along with interest @ 24% per annum w.e.f. 14.5.2012 till the date of actual refund as deposited by him; (ii) to pay compensation of Rs.20,00,000, for mental trauma, harassment and hardship caused to the complainant; (iii) to pay Rs.1,00,000 to the complainants as the cost of litigation and (iv) any other relief which the Commission deems fit and proper, in the fact and circumstances of the case, be passed.

3. The facts as stated in the complaint are that the builder was a company, engaged in the business of development and construction of multi - story residential and commercial buildings and selling its unit to the prospective buyers. The builder launched for construction of residential complex in the name of "M3M WOODSHIRE" in Sector - 107, Gurgaon, Haryana, in 2012. The complainant booked a 2BHK + Study flat, admeasuring of 1,534 Sq. ft, in "M3M WOODSHIRE" in April, 2012. The complainant deposited Rs.5,00,000 on 14.5.2012, through cheque No. 763315, (encashed on 09.06.2012), vide Receipt No. 9720, Rs.2,23,176 on 12.7.2012, vide Receipt No. 10356 and Rs.6,88,066 on 3.1.2013, vide Receipt No. 11608 (total Rs.14,11,242). A provisional allotment letter dated 13.2.2013 was issued to the complainant, allotting Flat No. 1002, Tower No. B03, 10th Floor, in aforesaid project, admeasuring 1,534 Sq. ft. Along with this allotment letter, a "Construction Linked Payment Plan" was attached, in which Rs.13,68,941 had to be paid by 3.1.2013. 95% of total sale consideration had to be paid in 12 instalments, on start of different level of construction up to commencement of external plaster and 5% had to be paid within 30 days of the notice of possession. Thereafter, the complainant deposited Rs.4,00,000 on 5.12.2013, vide Receipt No. 17631, Rs.5,00,000 on 5.12.2013, vide Receipt No. 17632, Rs.15,25,488 on 10.1.2014, vide Receipt No. 18747 and Rs.5,00,000 / on 10.1.2014, vide Receipt No. 18748 (total Rs.29,25,488). Apartment Buyer's Agreement (ABA) was executed on 25.03.2014. In the ABA, promised date of possession was mentioned as 36 months with grace period of 180 days, from the date of commencement of the construction. In ABA "Construction Linked Payment Plan" was attached and total cost of the flat was shown as Rs.84,89,362 and the time was an essence of the contract. The complainant requested the builder to change the "Construction Linked Payment Plan" to "Deferred Payment Plan", i.e. the remaining amount be realised at the time of possession. The builder agreed the request. The builder through addendum dated 23.5.2014 amended the ABA dated 25.3.2014. Total cost of the apartment was changed to Rs.1,00,23,362 and instead of 13 instalments, now six instalments payment schedule was attached to this addendum, enhancing the amount of instalments, which was deceptive. The builder issued possession notice dated 28.4.2017, demanding Rs.60,88,926 (including the stamp charges). The complainant, then, visited the site and found that the construction work was still in progress. Club building, convenient shopping complex, balconies, common area, plumbing works, drainage, internal and external electrification, covered parking, etc. were not in existence, although costs of these things were included in the possession letter. The construction of the tower was