Consumer agreements signed by seemingly authorized representatives are binding and protect consumers from internal business disputes.

ORDER

JUSTICE A. P. SAHI, PRESIDENT

1. The order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh dated 22.06.2015 has been assailed in this appeal by the appellant/j builder contending that the impugned order proceeds on an incorrect appreciation of facts and the complaint has been allowed in favour of the complainant awarding the reliefs, in spite of the fact that the complainant/ respondent was a defaulter in the payments as against the Villa booked by him and that he was liable to pay the demands raised by the appellants.

2. The background of the case is that the respondent/ complainant booked Villa No. 118 in the project "The Courtyard" in Mega Housing Project of TDI City, Sector 110-111, Mohali, Punjab. The A 21.Q5.2Q11 with Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jain as the Authorized Signatory on behalf r' of the appellant. The basic price of the villa was fixed at Rs.41,80,000/- and there were additional external development charges that were also payable.

3. The allegation of the complainant is that the complainant had made a payment under a down payment plan of about Rs.30,00,000/- which constituted about <• 90% of the total basic sale price. The appellants raised a demand on 06.02.2013 for which a clarification was sought. They also raised a demand . subsequently on 05.06.2013 to the tune of Rs.9,61,967/- against which a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- was paid and the complainant was assured by the appellants that the possession would be delivered at the earliest.

4. The complainant having failed to receive the possession, instituted CC/69/2015 alleging deficiency and came up with a case that the entire payment had been made, and, in fact, the appellants through Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jain had accepted that they had received full and final payment except IFMS charges of Rs. 1,00,000/- in respect of the Copper Villa No. 118.

5. Notices were issued and the complaint was contested by the appellant urging that in effect the payments which have been received by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jain and the letters issued by him indicating no dues, were all unauthorized, and in effect the complainant was liable to pay the balance amount of Rs. 17,00,361/-. According to the appellants this was intimated to the complainant vide letter dated 26.08.2014, which was in the shape of a legal notice calling upon the complainant to deposit the amount and since the’ complainant failed to make good the demands that were due, the booking was cancelled on 06.10.2014. The letter dated 06.10.2014 is also on record.

6. The complainant had however through counsel responded to the legal notice stating therein that the demand raised is absolutely illegal and therefore the complainant was not liable to pay any amount as alleged in the legal notice. It is thereafter that the complaint was filed before the State Commission.

7. Mr. Ray, learned counsel for the appellant has advanced his submissions primarily on two grounds first that the Villa was ready, and possession had been offered as such there was no reason to award delay compensation and secondly, the interest awarded or any other compensation awarded has overlooked the fact of the discount availed of by the complainant. In effect, Mr. Ray submits that the discount was wrongly extended to the complainant to which he was not entitled and the discounted amount also deserves to be realized from him.

8. He also submits that the reliefs granted even otherwise do not survive, in as much as, the possession of the Villa has been given in December, 2022 and the deed of the property has also been conveyed in January, 2023. The fa