Forfeiture of earnest money beyond 10% of the sale price without evidence of actual loss is unreasonable; hence, only reasonable deductions from consumer funds are permissible.

ORDER

D R .IN D E R J IT S IN G H , P R E S ID IN G M E M B E R

1. The present Consumer Complaint (CC) has been filed under Section 21 (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Complainant against the Opposite Parties - 1 to 5 as detailed above, iFnEteDrC aBliaA praying for directions to OPs:-

(i). To refund of the amount of Rs.62,95,330/-(Principal Amount) along with Rs.43,00,583/- i.e. interest @18% from the date of deposit upto 30.06.2017 along with future and pendent lite interest @18% per annum to the date of payment.

ii. to pay an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- for damages towards mental agony, harassment, and Rs.2.5 lakh towards cost of litigation.

2. Original Complaint had 6 Opposite Parties. Notice was issued to OP - 1 to 5 only on 29.08.2017, holding that OP-6 is not a necessary party to the complaint.

3. It is averred/stated in the Complaint that:-

i)That the complainant booked a flat on 22.03.2013 in the residential Project launched by the Opposite Party no. 1 in the name of "The corridors", situated in Sector 67-A,Gurgaon, Haryana and was allotted Apartment at 3rd Floor, tower B-6 with a total area 1919.64 sq. ft. vide Allotment letter dated 07.08.2013. Apartment Buyer's Agreement dated 14.04.2014 was entered between the parties. The total consideration for the flat was Rs.2,04,75,154/- out of which, the complainant paid Rs.62,95,330/-.The OPs were liable to handover the possession of the unit within 42 (forty two) months from the date of approval of the Building Plans for fulfilment of the precondition imposed thereunder ("Commitment Period"); and an additional grace period of 180 days, after the expiry of the said Commitment Period was given.

ii) The Complainant is a cancer survivor, having been diagnosed and operated upon in the year 2015. She avers that her ongoing and long-term follow-up treatment necessitated substantial medical expenditure, depleting her savings and placing her under severe financial constraints. Due to this medical exigency, she requested Opposite Party No. 1 for additional time to make the outstanding instalment payments. That her brother had also booked an apartment with the same developer. In light of her struggle to manage both medical costs and apartment instalments, the Complainant requested Opposite Party No. 1 to adjust the amounts already paid by her towards the purchase consideration of the flat booked by her brother, Mr. Atul Aggarwal. This request, made by her was declined. Opposite Party No. 1 demanded further instalments.

iii) As per the averment, during this period, widespread complaints emerged regarding significant delays in the project's completion, with minimal progress visible at the site. Opposite Party No. 1 continued its demands for payments. The Complainant further contends that he learned from other flat buyers that Opposite Party No. 1 intended to revise the sanctioned Layout Plans of the Project and would be seeking permissions from allottees for such revisions.

iv) The Complainant alleges that he discovered that the DTCP had not issued any license to Opposite Party No. 1 to construct or sell apartments in the project. The license had, in fact, been granted to Opposite Parties No. 2 to 5, with whom Opposite Party No. 1 had made certain "Internal Arrangements" for construction and sale. This arrangement, being purely internal and neither recognized nor approved by the DTCP, potentially invalidated Opposite Party No. I's authority to convey valid legal title to the allottees. The Complainant raised these critical issues with Opposite Party No. 1. The officials did not provide any substantive reply but instead threatened to cancel her allotment, citing default, and advised her to focus on balance paym