IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 18.08.2018 Date of Hearing: 15.01.2025 Date of Decision: 25.02.2025 FIRST APPEAL NO. -477/2018 IN THE MATTER OF M/S ANTRIKSH ZEAL., THROUGH THE DIRECTOR, 34/C-8, SECTOR-8, ROHINI DELHI-110085.

(Through: Mr. Surender Sheoran & Associates)

…Appellant VERSUS

1. MR. GAURAV PRAKASH S/O SH. OM PRAKASH CHAUDHARY

2. MRS. SHASHI PANDEY W/O MR. GAURAV PRAKASH, BOTH AT:

R/O B-402, DOORDARSHAN APARTMENT, PLOT NO.9, SECTOR -45, GURGAON-122003.

(Through: Mr. Gaurav Prakash, Advocates)

…. Respondents CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)

Present: Mr. Sourabh Yadav, counsel for the Appellant.

None for the respondent.

PER : HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT

JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission records are as under:

“Complainants have filed the present complaint against the OPs under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that the complainants booked a flat of 1500 Sq. Ft. in proposed project "Antriksh Zeal" in Sector-112, Gurgaon in April/May-2012 and paid amount of Rs.15,00,000/. The complainants waited for about 21 months for proper launch of the project and approached the OPs several times but there is no proper response from the OPs and the complainants paid Rs.15 lakhs to the OPs from personal loan to complete the registration amount.The complainants further alleged that when there was no response from the OPs to launch the project, the complainants requested the OPs to refund the paid amount of Rs. 15,00,000/ - with interest on deposited amount and the OPs after much requests and communications only refunded the principal amount of Rs. 15 lakhs in May, June & July-2014 but not released the interest amount and the complainants alleged that this is an act of deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

On these allegations the complainants have filed the complaint praying for direction to OPs to pay 18 % interest per annum on Rs.

15 lakhs till its realization, as the OPs taken more than 2 years to refund the advance amount of Rs. 15 lakhs to the complainants ie. from April-2012 to July-2014 as well as compensation of Rs.7 lakhs for causing mental agony, physical harassment, conveyance etc. The complainants have also sought Rs.25,000/- as litigation charges.”

2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 18.08.2018 whereby it held as under:

“We have considered the submissions of both the parties and gone through the terms & conditions. Accordingly, it the UP has refunded the amount to the complainant within 12 maths from the date of registration then OP will not be liable to pay any interest or compensation. But in the present case admittedly OP has refunded the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- after expiry of period of 2 years and 2 months. Thus, there is no validity in the submission of the OP and OP is also liable to pay interest on the principal amount. As the OP has failed to pay the interest on the deposited amount then we are of opinion that OP has indulged in unfair trade practice and there is an act of deficiency in service on the part of OP. Thus, OP is held guilty of deficiency in service.

6. Thus, holding guilty for the same, we direct the OP -

i) To pay to the complainant interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of deposit on deposited amount i.e. Rs.7,50,000/- on 01.04.2012 & Rs.

7,50,000/- on 15.05.2012 till the date of this order.

ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.25,000/- for harassment and mental agony suffered.

iii) To pay to the complainant Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation.”

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the District Commission, the Appellant/Opposite Party has preferred the present appeal, contending that the District Commission failed to appreciate that the Respondents are not consumers, as no allotment was made to them. Therefore, in the absence of any allot