An executing court lacks jurisdiction to review an order passed in its original capacity; however, where a developer fails to deliver a valid occupancy certificate or conveyance deed for an inordinate period, a consumer is entitled to a refund of their consideration along with interest and compensation for the delay.

ORDER

JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER

This is a case in which approach of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (VI) New Delhi in dealing with Complaint Case No.196 of 2020 was rather unique and unusual. The Appellants who were the Complainants had booked an Apartment for themselves with the Respondent/OP No.1 on 19.3.2010. The letter of allotment was issued in their favour by the said Respondent on 3.12.2010. The Builder-Buyer Agreement was thereafter signed on 1.3.2011. On 24.10.2015 the Respondent issued a letter offering possession of the Apartment and demanded certain balance payments from them, which they claim to have paid on 11.11.2015. The Respondent thereafter issued Possession Certificate in their favour on 7.5.2016. Consequently, keys of the Apartment were handed over to the Appellants/Complainants, who, however, found that the Apartment was altogether uninhabitable and at a great variance with what had been originally promised/represented to them. The Complainants claimed that not only the lawn space which was to be provided to them on the back side of their Apartment was wrongly included in the green belt area, but the Respondent also realized excessive payments on the pretext that there had been an increase in the super area of the Apartment which according to the Complainants was incorrect. Subsequently, on 22.3.2017 the Respondent demanded an additional amount of Rs.32,572/- towards VAT payment charges. Besides, the Appellants/Complainants were compelled to pay maintenance charges to the Respondent/OP No.2, which is a Company effectively controlled by the Respondent No.1 itself through the close relatives of its own Managerial Personnel. But no meaningful maintenance services were ever provided by Respondent No. 2, nor the Deed of Conveyance in respect of the Apartment was executed in favour of the Complainants by the Opposite Parties, which compelled them to stop payment of any further maintenance charges after March 2020.

2. In view of such improper conduct imputed to the Respondent, the Complainants/Appellants on 21.12.2020 filed the aforesaid Complaint case in which they also impleaded various officials of the Haryana Government, the Municipal Corporation, the Electricity Distribution Corporation as well as Haryana Electricity Board as Opposite Parties Nos. 3 to 8 in the Complaint, and sought the following reliefs against them –

“A) Direct Opposite Party No. 1 to pay interest on the total cost/price/sale consideration of the unit i.e. Rs. 43,37,553/- (Rupees Forty Three Lakh Thirty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Three) at the rate of 12% per annum for five years amounting to Rs. 26,02,532/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakh Two Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Two) for continuing delay in registration of the unit as per the agreement.

B) Direct Opposite Party No. 1 to refund a total of Rs. 6,26,854.4/- (Rupees Six Lakh Twenty Six Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Four and Forty Paisa) for charging excess on account of super area.

C) Direct Opposite Party No. 1 to refund various charges and taxes taken by it but not paid to the concerned authorities (Opposite Party No. 3 to 7) EDC for Rs. 3,75,173/- (Rupees Three Lakh Seventy Five Thousand One Hundred Seventy Three), Service tax for Rs. 61,526/- (Rupees Sixty One Thousand Five Hundred Twenty Six) vat for Rs. 32,572/- (Rupees Thirty Two Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Two) and other Misc. Charges.

D) Direct Opposite Party No. 1 to pay damages for Rs. 12 Lakh for poor quality of construction work much below the standard o