1. The complaint filed under S.17 of CPA 1986 with following prayers:
(a) Direct OPs to execute the registered sale deed in respect of the Flat No. 202 in favour of the Complainants as per the sale agreement date 15.5.2014 by receiving the balance amount;
(b) In case the OPs have failed to execute the sale deed, direct OPs to refund amount of Rs. 41,82,514 along with interest at 24% p.a;
(c) Direct OPs to pay compensation of Rs. 5 lakh and litigation cost of Rs. 50,000.

2. This complaint is received on 15.6.2020 through Advocate came to be admitted and ordered notice against OPs. 1 to 3 of whom OP. 1 put his appearance through Advocate, while OPs. 2 & 3 remained absent. OP. 1 fails to submit version. The Commission held an enquiry by receiving affidavit evidence of Ms. Nikitha.S and got marked the documents as Exs - C1 to C17. After closure of enquiry, having heard the learned Counsel for Complainant No. 1 & 2, the Commission has to decide on the alleged rendering deficiency of service on the part of OPs, and if it is shown, what reliefs could be granted in favour of Complainant Nos. 1 & 2?

3. Ms. Nikitha.S daughter of Sudharshan.K.L being 2nd Complainant has reiterated the contents of the complaint in her evidence and placed as many as 17 documents. She has submitted that on 15.5.2014 an agreement of sale is entered between Complainant Nos. 1 & 2 on one part and OP.1 to 3 on the other part. So far they have paid Rs. 41,82,511 out of Rs. 43,09,000 and submits Rs. 1,26,486 has to be paid. But facts remain that as promised under agreement of sale, OP.1 to 3 failed to complete the project. In such circumstances, learned Counsel for the Complainants rightly submit that alternative relief i.e. relief (b) has to be considered.

4. Further to be noted herein that from Ex - C14 / copy of legal notice coupled with 3 postal receipts and postal acknowledgements marked as Exs - C15 to C17, OP.1 to 3 were notified through Advocate, yet for the reasons best known to them, failed to participate in the complaint proceedings. OP.1 having been represented through learned Counsel, failed to submit version and failed to participate in the enquiry proceedings for the reasons best known to him. In such circumstances, affidavit evidence coupled with Exs - C1 to C17 would establish the alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs, since they failed to complete the project within 36 months as agreed under Ex - C1 / sale agreement date 15.5.2014. Though Complainants have sought for direction to be issued against Ops to execute sale deed in respect of flat No. 202 pursuant to agreement of sale date 15.5.2014, facts remain that OPs failed to complete the project. In such circumstances, Commission is of the considered view to consider the next alternative relief sought by the Complainants to refund Rs. 41,82,514. Learned Counsel submitted that in the case of EMAAR MGF Land LTE & Anr. v. Amit Puri, reported in (2015) II CPJ 568 (NC), wherein it was held OPs having failed to deliver the possession of a developed plot or refund the money received for almost 8 years, undoubtedly tremendous mental agony and physical harassment was caused to the Complainant. Under the stated circumstances, award of petty amount of Rs. 1,50,000 as compensation cannot be said to be unreasonable by any standard. And in para 13 it was held as
As regards the question of award of interest on the amount(s) deposited by the Complainant, on the point, the State Commission has observed as follows:
The complainant was deprived of his hard earned money, on the basis of misleading information given by the Opposite Parties, that he would be handed over the legal physical possession of the residential plot, in question, by the stipulated date, but they failed to do so. The complainant, was, thus, caused financial loss. The hard earned money of the complainant was utilized by the Opposite Parties, for a sufficient longer period. Had this amount been deposited by the complainant, in some bank,