GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. ANUPAM GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave Granted.

(2.) Under challenge in these appeals is a judgment and final order dtd. 1/4/2019 passed in First Appeal Nos. 1852 of 2018 and 1853 of 2018 by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi[NCDRC], at the instance of Greater Mohali Area Development Authority[GMADA], who is aggrieved by the order dtd. 1/3/2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarhp[State Commission], whereby the State Commission partly allowed the respondents' complaints (being CC No.438 of 2017 filed by respondent Anupam Garg; and CC No.439 of 2017 filed by respondent Rajiv Kumar) against GMADA directing the latter to refund the entire amount deposited by both parties in respect of securing flats in the residential scheme launched by it along with 8% interest thereon as also paying additional costs for mental harassment, litigation and the interest paid by the respondents to the State Bank of India, for the loans that they had secured to arrange for the funds required to be invested in the project.

(3.) For the sake of convenience we only illustrate the facts of CC No.438 of 2017 filed by Anupam Garg, which are similar to the facts being in CC No.439 of 2017 filed by Rajiv Kumar. The sequence of events and background (as per CC 438 of 2017), as have been culled out by the Commissions, leading up to these appeals are: