Consumer protection laws enforce timely delivery of property and accountability for financial obligations under agreements.

ORDER

SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J.

Briefly stating the relevant facts of the case that the present complaint relates property Unit No. B-185A in Project Visionnaire, proposed for construction on plot measuring 260 square yards. The Complainants purchased this property m Opposite Party No. 1 & 3, M/s Native Buildcon Private Limited (a joint nture between BPTP Group Companies and Institutional Investors), a real ate developer engaged in infrastructure development projects. The developer d undertaken to develop "Project Visionnaire," consisting of apartments, plots, uses, and villas at Sector 70-A, Gurgaon, Haryana. Acting solely upon the omises and representations made by Opposite Party No. 1 & 3, the mplainants submitted a provisional allotment application dated 18.08.2013, ompanied by an initial payment of Rs.20.00 lakhs via cheque dated 28.07.2013. e total consideration amount for the property was approximately Rs.3.48 res. Subsequently, a Villa Buyers Agreement dated 13.12. 2013, was executed ween the Complainants and

Opposite Party No. 1 & 3. Opposite Party No. 2, having a financial arrangement with Opposite Party No. & 3, approached the Complainants to provide loan facilities amounting to 2,55,00,000/- for the property purchase. The loan was sanctioned and Account . 609581392 was opened pursuant to an agreement dated 15.03.2014, with a payment term of 120 months through 120 EMIs. Prior to the loan agreement ecution, a Tripartite Agreement dated 16.12.2013, was executed among all rties. Opposite Party No. 2 has disbursed Rs.84,70,689 /- to the complainants till e as paid to Opposite Party No. 1 & 3.Clause 3 of the Tripartite Agreement plicitly states that Opposite Party No. 1 & 3 shall assume liability for Pre-EMI erest payments and subsequent EMIs payable by the borrowers mplainants) to Opposite Party No. 2 (HDFC Ltd.) from the first disbursement e until possession is handed over. Through a letter dated 23.12.2013, Opposite rty No. 1 reaffirmed that EMI payments would commence only upon ssession delivery. The developer committed to completing construction by 11.2015, with scheduled EMIs to commence thereafter. It was further agreed t if possession was delayed, EMIs would start only after possession delivery, d the developer would be liable for additional interest payments to Opposite rty No. 2 on behalf of the Complainants. Of the total consideration of Rs.3.48 res, the Complainants have paid Rs.55 lakhs, while Opposite Party No. 2 has d Rs.84,70,689, totalling Rs.1,39,70,689/- in accordance with the Villa Buyers reement. Additionally, the Complainants paid Rs.1,40,885 as VAT in December 15 as demanded by Opposite Party No. 1 & 3. Despite these payments, no ssession letter has been provided, in clear violation of the executed reements. Opposite Party No. 2 honored the Tripartite Agreement terms and d not demand Pre-EMI interest payments from the Complainants until January 17. In May 2016, recognizing the project's uncertain completion prospects, the mplainants explored alternative ready-to-move-in projects offered by Opposite rty No. 1 & 3, but no alternatives were provided. Through an email dated 01.2017, Opposite Party No. 1 & 3 reconfirmed their liability regarding operty subvention until possession .Due to the acts and omissions of Opposite rty No. 1 & 3, the Complainants have suffered severe prejudice. Contrary to the partite Agreement, Opposite Party No. 2 began issuing demand letters dated 01.2017, 01.03.2017, and 3.03.2017, demanding Pre-EMI interest payments and eatening penal charges and adverse CIBIL score impacts for non-payment. Consequently, the Complainants issued a Legal Notice dated 18.01.2017, to all posite Parties demanding: (a) provision of an alternative property of uivalent size and value; (b) direct remittance of scheduled Pre-EMI interest to posite Party No. 2 as per the Tripartite Agreement; and (c) refund of Rs.1.43 res with 24% interest. The notice also called upon Opposite Party No. 2 to rsue recovery di