ORDER

DR.INDER JIT SINGH, MEMBER

1.       The present Consumer Complaint (CC) has been filed by the Complainants against Opposite Party (OP) as detailed above, inter alia praying for directions to the OP to:-

(iii) Pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 towards cost of litigation to the complainants.

2.       Notice was issued to the OP on 04.12.2017.  Parties filed Written Statement/Reply, Rejoinder, Evidence by way of an Affidavit and Written Arguments/Synopsis etc. as per details given in the Table at Annexure-A.  The details of the flats allotted to the Complainant (s)/other relevant details, based on pleadings of the parties and other records of the case are also given in the Table at Annexure-A.

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

4.       The OP in their written statement/reply stated that: -

(iii) It is denied that complainants are consumers within the meaning of  

section 2 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. No question of assurances  can arise in the present case as the complainants admittedly purchased the flat from open market and not OP. That the details of payment enumerated by complainants does not match with the records. Even though as per BBA the buyers were liable to pay 24% interest p.a., OP keeping in mind delay and for sole benefit of buyers , had reduce the interest that is payable by the buyers on delayed payments to 9% p.a., since 01.01.2017. That complainants are making highly inflated claims to invoke pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.

5.       Heard learned counsel for the Complainants.  Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the Complaint, based on their Complaint/Reply, Rejoinder, Evidence, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

6.       The complainants argued that their case is covered under the judgment passed by this Commission in Suresh Chand Aggarwal and Anr. Vs. Ansal Crown Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd., CC/2170/2017, decided on 11.11.2021, wherein this Commission has dealt similar dispute related to same project taking into consideration same objections raised by the OP and granted refund to the complainant.  The complainants argued that the agreement executed by OP was an unfair and one-sided  contract, till date, the project is not complete, no offer of possession has been made yet, the possession was due on 17.12.2014 but OP has failed to deliver the possession till date, delivery of possession was the essence of the Agreement.                                                                                             

7.         The complainants also argued that force majeure does not include non-payment of instalment by other buyers as ground for extension of time for OP. Relying upon various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court they argued that the allottees cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the flats.  They further argued that OP’s contentions for delay on account of renewal of license by DTCP are not valid as OP failed to inform that when the license was renewed and failed to give reasons to show whether the delay was on the part of DTCP.  The complainants cannot be held liable for delay on account of issues between the OP and his contractors.  With respect to the complainants being subsequent allottees, the complainants relied upon the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Laureate Buildwell Pvt Ltd vs Charanjeet Singh in which it was held that per se bar to the relief of interest enunciated by the decision in Raje Ram which was applied in Wg. Commander Arifur Rehman cannot be considered a good law and subsequent allottees are also entitled to refund. 

8.       The committed date of possession as per Agreement is 17.12.2014.  Admittedly the project is not complete even now.  OP in their written submissions dated 16.08.2022 has stated that OP is keen to complete the project, the work at site is at full sw