The developer is obligated to comply with consumer service commitments, ensuring timely refunds and compensation to affected individuals under the contract terms.

1. Leave granted in all matters, except Special Leave Petitions (Civil) Nos. 931, 939 and 968 of 2019.
Re: Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petitions (Civil) Nos. 928-976 of 2019, (Except SLPs (C) Nos. 931, 939 and 968 of 2019), [DLF Homes Panchkula (P) Ltd. v. Sushila Devi, (DLF Homes Panchkula (P) Ltd. v. Sushila Devi, Appeals by the developer.)]

2. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order dated 7-9-2018 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the National Commission") in DLF Homes Panchkula (P) Ltd. v. Sushila Devi, (DLF Homes Panchkula (P) Ltd. v. Sushila Devi, 2018 SCC OnLine NCDRC 395).

3. The original complainants had booked apartments in a project titled "DLF Valley, Panchkula" situated in Panchkula, Haryana, which was to be developed by the developer. The developer had promised to hand over possession within 24 months from the date of signing of the agreement. Various complaints came to be filed by the complainants submitting that despite period of two years being over there was no substantial progress and as such, the developer was deficient in rendering service. Some of the complainants prayed for refund of all the moneys they had deposited from time to time along with interest and compensation while others sought relief in the nature of compensation for delayed delivery of possession but insisted that the possession of the apartments be handed over to them.

4. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") by its various orders allowed the complaints and directed refund of the amounts deposited by the complainants concerned with interest @ 15% per annum in some cases and with lesser rate in others and compensation. Similar directions were passed in cases of delayed delivery of possession.

5. These orders passed by the State Commission were challenged by the developer by filing aforementioned first appeals in the National Commission which were disposed of by the National Commission vide its common order dated 7-9-2018, (DLF Homes Panchkula (P) Ltd. v. Sushila Devi, 2018 SCC OnLine NCDRC 395). The National Commission affirmed the view taken by the State Commission and dismissed all the appeals. Aggrieved thereby the present appeals by special leave were filed by the developer.
Re: Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 26519 of 2018 [ Ravi Datt Aggarwal v. DLF Homes Panchkula (P) Ltd., ( Ravi Datt Aggarwal v. DLF Homes Panchkula (P) Ltd., Appeals by original complainants)]

6. While the appeals as aforesaid were pending before the National Commission, it was submitted by the developer that there had to be at least one Judicial Member on the Bench and in cases where there was not even one Judicial Member on the Bench, the appeals could not and ought not to be proceeded with. After hearing all submissions, the National Commission by its order dated 1-8-2018 reserved the matters for orders. Thereafter, review petitions were filed by the developer which were rejected on 8-8-2018. The developer then filed a petition under Art.227 of the Constitution being CM (M) No. 951 of 2018 in the High Court of Delhi questioning the said orders dated 1-8-2018 and 8-8-2018. While issuing notice, the High Court by its order dated 20-8-2018, (DLF Homes Panchkula (P) Ltd. v. Sushila Devi, CM (M) No. 951 of 2018, order dated 20-8-2018 (Del)), stayed the operation of the order dated 8-8-2018 passed by the National Commission. The National Commission, thereafter, passed a reasoned judgment on 7-9-2018, (DLF H