Hon’ble Mr. Santanu Saha, Member

JUDGEMENT

1. The present complaint under Section 18 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleges deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against M/s Soumita Project Private Limited and the persons impleaded as its directors. The dispute arises from a Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.10.2016 concerning aproposed real-estate project named “Lake Boulevard”.

GENESIS AND PROCEEDINGS

2. Under the Memorandum of Understanding, hereinafter referred to as “the MOU”, the complainant paid Rs.24,74,160/- to the Opposite Parties. She describes the payment as an advance towards purchase of 6,000 square feet of residential super built-up area at the basic rate of Rs.2,000/- per square foot. The Opposite Parties admit receipt but contend that the transaction was, in substance, a short-term financial investment under which approximately Rs.24,00,000/- was to yieldRs.37,50,000/-.

3. The proposed project did not obtain a sanctioned building plan, no regular agreement for sale was executed and construction did not commence. The parties thereafter exchanged communications concerning repayment, interest and possible allotment in anotherproject.

4. The complainant instituted the complaint on 01.10.2019 seeking principally Rs.37,50,000/- with interest at 18% per annum, compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for loss of opportunity and mental harassment, and litigation costs. The Opposite Parties entered appearance and filed their written version disputing maintainabilityand the complainant’s status as a “consumer”.

5. The parties filed evidence on affidavit, exchanged questionnaires and replies, and submitted written notes of argument. The complainant also filed a supplementary written note. The matter was heard in part on 29.07.2026 and further heard on 05.08.2026. Its disposal was delayed by the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the pendency before this Commission, adjournments and changes in the composition of the Bench. We have considered the entire record andthe submissions of the parties.

MATERIAL FACTS

6. The MOU contemplated purchase of 6,000 square feet of super built-up area in “Lake Boulevard” at Rs.2,000/- per square foot, yielding a total basic consideration of Rs.1,20,00,000/-. The complainant was to pay approximately twenty per cent as advance and, through cheques, paid Rs.24,74,160/- inclusive of service tax, which the Opposite Partiesadmittedly received.

7. A regular agreement for sale was to be executed only after the project obtained a sanctioned plan. No particular apartment was identified, and no agreement for sale was subsequently executed because sanction did not materialise.

8. The MOU also prescribed a repayment schedule commencing in May2017 and ending in January 2018. Under Table 2, the Opposite Parties were to repay the principal of Rs.24,00,000/- together with a “Marginamount” of Rs.13,50,000/-, aggregating to Rs.37,50,000/-.

9. Upon completion of the agreed repayment, the arrangement concerning the proposed 6,000-square-foot premises was to become null and void. Delay in paying a scheduled instalment attractedinterest at 9% per annum, described as a penalty.

10. If repayment was not completed within a grace period of six months from January 2018, the complainant could take an allotment of 2,200 square feet in “Lake Boulevard” without further payment towards the basic selling price, though normal additional charges would remain payable. The MOU further provided for automatic cancellation if the sanctioned plan was not obtained within twelve months, whereupon the amount paid was to be refunded with interestat 18% per annum.

11. The sanctioned plan was admittedly not obtained. The complainant sought repayment by communications dated 14.06.2018 and 09.07.2018. According to her, the Opposite Parties acknowledgedthe obligation to refund Rs.24,74,160/- with interest at 18% per annum.

12. The Opposite Parties offered either to retain the complainant in “Lake Boul