These Applications, under Section 60 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short, the “Act”), have been filed by the Opposite Parties praying for review of the common Order, dated 21.09.2021, passed by this Commission wherein the Consumer Complaint Nos. 379 of 2013, 411 of 2019 and 791 of 2019, were partly allowed directing the Opposite Parties to refund the amount deposited by the Complainants along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of actual refund. It was observed as under:-

“           Having given our thoughtful consideration to the various pleas raised by the learned Counsel for the Parties, we find that the Construction of the two Villas which were to be constructed by the Opposite Parties on Plot Nos. 129 and 130 have not yet been fully completed. The Complainants have paid a total sum of ₹3,33,60,000/- (Rupees Three Crores Thirty Three Lakhs Sixty Thousand) as per the statement of Ledger Account filed by the Complainants (Annexure C-3).The fact regarding non-completion of Villa also stand admitted by the Opposite Parties but reasons which have been given for not completing the construction are not satisfactory and cannot be a ground for non-completion of construction for such a long period.

Keeping in view the Judgment passed by this Commission in Emmar MGF Land Ltd. & Ors.  vs. Amit Puri [II (2015) CPJ 568 NC], wherein it was laid down that after the promised date of delivery, it is the discretion of the Complainant whether he wants to accept the offer of possession, if any, or seek refund of the amounts paid with reasonable interest, it is held that it is well within the Complainant’s right to seek for refund of the principal amount with interest and compensation as construction is still not complete. We are of the view that the Complainant cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the delivery of possession and the act of the Opposite Party in relying on force majure clause while retaining the amounts deposited by the Complainant, is not only an act of deficiency of service but also amounts to unfair trade practice.

We find it a fit case to place reliance on the recent Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raghavan, II (2019) CPJ 34 (SC), wherein the Apex Court has observed as follows:

“6.7.  A terms of a contract will not be final and binding if it is shown that the flat purchasers had no option but to sign on the dotted line, on a contract framed by the builder. The contractual terms of the Agreement dated 08.05.2012 are ex-facie one sided, unfair and unreasonable. The incorporation of such one-sided clauses in an agreement constitutes an unfair trade practice as per Section 2(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since it adopts unfair methods or practices for the purpose of selling the flats by the Builder.

7.       In view of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that the terms of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement dated 08.05.2012 were wholly one-sided and unfair to the Respondent-Flat Purchaser. The Appellant-Builder cannot seek to bind the Respondent with such one-sided contractual terms.”

We also find it a fit case to place reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Devasis Rudra, II (2019) CPJ 29 SC, in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as hereunder :-

“.....It would be manifestly unreasonable to construe the contract between the parties as requiring the buyer to wait indefinitely for possession. By 2016, nearly seven years had