ORDER

1.       Heard learned Counsel for the Complainants and the learned Counsel for the DLF/Opposite Parties. The three Complainants have come up praying for several reliefs which are enlisted from clause (a) to clause (k). However, when the arguments commenced it was pointed out by learned Counsel for both the parties that these issues have been dealt in other cases as well.

2.       It is undisputed that the Complainants herein are subsequent purchasers from the original allottee. This agreement of subsequent purchase is dated 26.04.2012 on which date the Complainants are stated to have deposited a sum of Rs.2,72,674/- as transfer charges in conformity with clause 34 of the original agreement. Clause 34 is extracted herein under:

“34. Agreement not assignable

The Allottee agress that this Agreement is not assignable for a period of one year from the date of execution of this Agreement nor the name of the Allottee can be substituted and/or deleted without prior written consent of the Company. The Company may, at its sole discretion, on such terms and conditions and subject to applicable laws and notifications or any governmental direction, permit the Allottee to get the name of his nominee substituted, added and/or deleted in his place. The Company at the time of granting permission may impose such terms and conditions and charges as per its discretion. The Allottee shall be solely responsible and liable for all legal, monetary or any other consequences that may arise from such assignment, deletion and/or substitution.”

3.       The contention raised is that the said clause is arbitrary and open ended without any limitations and hence no amount charged thereunder can be permitted to be sustained.

4.       It is however undisputed that the amount on 26.04.2012 paid by the Complainants was done voluntarily and without any protest till the Complainants state that they came to know from a newspaper cutting on 24.04.2016 that such charges cannot be levied and are liable to be refunded. The said newspaper cutting is at page 138 of the paper book with reference to some order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Panchkula, Haryana.

5.       Based on the said information, the Complainants state that they tendered a request for refund of the transfer fee on 12.02.2016, a copy of the said communication has been filed along with record.

6.       It may however be pointed out that even though this issue has been pleaded in paragraph 13 of the complaint yet no prayer or relief in respect of the said refund is available in the prayer clauses of the complaint that have been referred to herein above.

7.       It is in this background that the learned Counsel for the Complainants has submitted that apart from this claim of refund of transfer amount, the Complainants are entitled to delay compensation as has been decided in several cases by this Commission and upheld by the Apex Court. He has cited the judgement passed by the Apex Court in the case of “DLF HOMES PANCHKULA PVT. LTD. VS. D.S. DHANDA (2020) 16 SCC 318”. Learned Counsel has invited the attention of the Bench to paragraph 18.5 of the said report which is extracted herein under.

“18.5. In case, the original allottee has transferred the flat, the transferee shall be entitled to interest @9% from the expiry of three years from the agreement or from the date of transfer, whichever is later.

Civil Appeals Nos. 4942-45 of 2019 [arising out of SLPs (C) Nos. 4363-66 of 2019]”

8.       It is undisputed that the present is also a case of possession and not of refund. Countering the said submissions Mr. Pravin Bahadur, learned Counsel for the DLF submits that there is no relief prayed for in respect of refund of transfer charges even though there is an allegation and which has been denied in the written version. It is also submitted and the Complainants are not entitled to seek any such refund keeping in view the binding nature of clause 34 of the agreement referred to abov