The court affirmed that consumers' rights are protected even with multiple purchases for personal use, emphasizing the builder's obligation to deliver as promised.

1. The present Complaint is filed under S.21(a) (1) of Consumer Protection Act , 1986. Originally, the Complaint was filed by the Complainant - Mr. Surender K. Narang and his wife Ms. Gita Rani Narang. During the pendency of the Complaint, Complainant - Ms. Gita Rani Narang expired and her legal heirs Master Abhimanyu Narang and Master Abhay Narang were substituted.

2. Case of the Complainants is that Complainant - Mr. Surender K. Narang and his wife Ms. Gita Rani Narang booked 3 flats, viz. Flats Nos. OAK 1402, OAK 1502 and PALASH - 701 (hereinafter referred as Flat Nos.1, 2 & 3) on different dates in the Group Housing Project ˜Srishti - Shipra Krishna, 15, Ahinsa Khand, Indirapuram, Distt. Ghaziabad (U.P.). The Project was a joint venture of Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2.

3. Opposite Party No. 1 / Builder represented that all approvals from the concerned authorities were already taken. The Complainants booked Flat No. 1 (OAK 1402) measuring super area 2500 sq. ft. on 4.6.2013 by paying an advance of Rs. 5 lakh, vide cheque No. 827476 drawn on ICICI Bank and the flat was allotted, vide allotment letter No. 1128 dated 4.6.2013. The possession of the flat was to be delivered by February 2014.

4. The Complainants also booked Flat No. 2 measuring 2,350 sq. ft. by paying Rs. 10 lakh. As per allotment letter dated 30.11.2014, possession of the flat was to be delivered by April, 2015.

5. Similarly, the Complainants booked Flat No. 3 measuring 2,350 sq. ft. by paying an advance of Rs. 5,00,000. As per allotment letter dated 30.5.2013, possession was to be given by January, 2014.

6. The Complainants also made payment to Opposite Party No. 1 as per schedule given in the allotment letters. The Complainants came to know that Opposite Party applied for approval of building plan of the flats one year after booking of the flats after accepting substantial amount from the Complainants. The Complainants made timely payment to Opposite Party No. 1. They had taken loan from the bank and were paying interest on the amount. The Bank delayed disbursement of the loan amount because Opposite Party No. 1 failed to provide the approved map of the project. On 22.12.2015, Opposite Party No. 1 sent an email to the Complainants along with statement of account. As per the statement, super area of flat No. 1 was increased from 2,500 sq. ft. to 2680 sq. ft. and that of flat No. 2 from 2,350 sq. ft. to 2,680 sq. ft., thereby arbitrarily increasing the cost of the flats by Rs. 21 lakhs. Similarly, the area of flat No. 3 was increased from 2,450 sq. ft. to 2,463 sq. ft. Opposite Party No. 1 also failed to deliver possession in time. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainants filed the instant Consumer Complaint with the following prayer:
A. award compensation of against claim Rs. 3,540,000 (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs Forty Thousand only) as mentioned in paragraph IV (1) above along with interest, if any;
B. award compensation of against claim Rs. 1,57,51,624 (Rupees One Crore Fifty Seven lacs Fifty One Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty Four only) as mentioned in paragraph IV (2) above along with interest, if any;
C. award compensation of against claim of Rs. 5,80,000 (Rupees Five Lac Eighty Thousand only) as mentioned in paragraph IV(3) above along with interest, if any;
D. direct reverse of entry of Rs. 21, 50,248 (Rupees twenty one lakh fifty thousand two hundred fifty eight) as mentioned in paragraph IV (4) above, if any;
E. award compensation of against claims Rs. 43,458 (Rupees Forty Three Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Eight only) as mentioned in para