The judgment affirms that significant delays in possession warrant fair compensation under consumer protection laws, where contractual obligations are not met.

1. The present Consumer Complaint (CC) has been filed by the Complainants against the opposite party as detailed above, inter aila praying for direction to the opposite party:
(i) to hand over possession of duly constructed / completed flats without any delay to all the complainants and other flat buyers with same interest with all permanent utilities and amenities as per agreement.
(ii) to pay all the complainants / flat owners and other flat owners with same interest, compensation for the entire period of delay @12% p.a. on the amount deposited by the complainants with the OP till the time actual legal possession including the OC is provided.
(iii) to provide to the complainants and other flat owners with same interest each of the facilities and amenities which were promised in the agreement.
(iv) to pay to the complainants and other flat owners with same interest additional compensation @12% interest p.a. on the amount deposited for the delay in provision of the promised facilities and amenities OR in the alternative, in case of non - provision of the promised amenities and facilities, direct OP to pay to the complainants and other flat owners with same interest a sum of Rs.10,00,000 each.
(v) to refund to the complainants and other flat owners with same interest the sum charged illegally towards car parking along with 12% p.a. interest.
(vi) to pay to the complainants and other flat owners with same interest a compensation of Rs.10,00,000 each by way of compensation for mental harassment and agony, to be distributed equally among the complainants along with 12% interest.
(vii) to refund to the complainants and other flat owners with same interest the amount charged on account of service tax alongwith 12% interest.
(viii) to refund to the complainants and other flat buyers with same interest, the corpus fund illegally collected along with 12% interest.
(ix) to form association under the Karnataka Apartment Owners Act, 1972 to the benefit of the complainants and other flat buyers with same interest.
(x) award cost of the complaint to the complainants.

2. IA / 16863/2018 seeking permission to proceed in representative capacity for the benefit of entire class of persons having same interest under S.12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , was allowed and public notice in terms of S.13(6) of the Act, read with O.1 R.8 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also ordered to be published in the newspapers. Notice was issued to the opposite party on 22/04/2019 giving them 30 days' time to file their written statement.

3. It is averred / stated in the complaint that:
(i) That the complainants booked apartments in the project of the OP namely 'Vahe Imperial Gardens' situated in Bangalore by paying 20% booking amount of the total sale consideration. The Construction agreement was executed on 11/09/2013. As per the Agreement the flat was to be delivered by the builder to the buyer within a period of 24 months from the date of sanction of licence and plan by the BBMP, Bangalore, with three months' grace period to complete the said construction. The license and plan was sanctioned by the BBMP on 18/06/2013. Therefore, 24 months' time period including three months' grace period expired on 18/09/2015. But the OP failed to hand over the possession, despite having taken 95% and in some cases upto 100% of the agreed sale consideration amount from most of the complainants. The OP has even failed to get the OC also.
(ii) The OP regularly kept updating the complainants about the progress of construction by sending progress report to the complainants and never intimated them of any delay. The progress reports sent by the OP on various dates do not contain any intimation of delay or any reason for such delay. The construction agreement clearly show