Amalgamation does not absolve previously incurred contractual obligations if proper notice was not provided regarding the change in status.

JUDGMENT

AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM, VSM (Retd), MEMBER

1. This First Appeal No. 504 of 2022 is filed by Mani Square Limited (Appellant) against Mrs. Satwinder Kaur (Respondent No. 1/ Complainant No. 1) and Mr. Paramjot Waraich (Respondent No. 2/ Complainant No. 3) and FA No. 505 of 2022 was filed by Mani Square Limited (Appellant) against Ardhendu Hazra (Respondent No. 1/ Complainant) and LIC Housing Finance Limited (Respondent No. 2/ OP-2). These appeals challenge the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, West Bengal („State Commission‟), Order dated 07.06.2019 in CC/722/2017 and CC/723/2017 allowing the Complaints.

2. Since the main facts and contentions are substantially similar in both the Appeals, for convenience FA No. 505 of 2022 filed by Mani Square Limited is considered as the lead case.

3. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant are that, the being allured to the advertisement made by IQ City Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd (OP-1), they submitted an application on 12.06.2014 for purchasing Villa Verde 8 in “I.Q. City” situated in Mouza- Sovapur, Khatian No. 198, P.S.-Durgapur, Dist- Burdwan and paid Rs 5,00,000 by two cheques amounting to Rs.2,00,000 and Rs.3,00,000 respectively as booking amount. The OP allotted the plot for total consideration for Rs.55,00,000 and of which the complainant paid Rs. 24,50,000 by himself and Rs. 22,70,000, through LIC Housing Finance Ltd (OP-3), from whom he obtained home building loan, aggregating Rs. 47,20,000 as part consideration. As per terms of the Agreement, the OP was under obligation to deliver possession of the Villa in question within time as per the obligations in terms of agreement. The complainant contended that in spite of payment of huge amount, the OP did not develop the project and hand over the possession of the villa. All the requests and persuasions went in vain. Ultimately, when the OP disclosed that it is not in a position to develop the villa and the project, the complainant being frustrated demanded refund Rs.47,20,000 along with interest 18% p.a. and made several correspondences. In the absence of any action by OP, he approached the State Commission with prayer for refund of Rs. 47,20,000 along with interest @18% p.a., compensation of Rs.20,00,000 for harassment & mental agony and Rs.50,000 as cost.

4. On issue of notice, none appeared for OP-1. OP-2 filed its written version and contended that in order to purchase the plot in question, the Complainant had sought and availed a loan of Rs. 23,70,000 at a floating rate for a period of 180 months at EMI payable of Rs. 25,614 under the scheme named „Griha Prakash‟. OP-2 further contended that a tripartite agreement was entered into between the parties dated 28.04.2015 wherein it was agreed that in case borrower withdraws the application of allotment or cancel the Agreement for Sale, the OP-1 shall refund the entire amount of OP-2 and after refunding the entire amount, the balance if any will be refunded to the Complainant.

5. The learned State Commission vide Order date 07.06.2019 allowed CC No. 723 of 2017 ex-parte against OP-1 and on contest against OP No. 2 with the following directions:

“i. The Opposite Party No. 1 is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 47,20,000/- to the complainant;

ii. The Opposite Party No. 1 is directed to pay compensation in the form of simple interest @ 12% p.a. over the amount already paid from the date of each payment till its realisation;

iii. The Opposite Party no. 1 is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant.

iv. The above payments must be paid within 60 days from the date of the communication of the order;

v. The Oppos