UNITECH LTD. Vs. AMRIK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this batch of 21 First Appeals, under Section 19 read with Section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), by a Real Estate Developer, namely, Unitech Limited, one of the Opposite Parties in the Complaints under the Act, is to different orders, dated 26.02.2016, 15.03.2016, 26.04.2016, 13.06.2016, 02.08.2016, 22.08.2016, 12.09.2016, 07.10.2016, 20.10.2016, 07.11.2016, 13.12.2016, 27.02.2017 And 02.03.2017, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT at Chandigarh (for short "the State Commission") in Complaint Cases No. 296 And 312 of 2015 and 52, 109, 202, 205, 259, 284, 338, 360, 396, 426, 427, 432, 433, 453, 467, 605, 606, 700 And 881 of 2016. By the impugned orders, while holding that the Opposite Parties, including the Appellant herein, were guilty of deficiency in service in neither delivering to the Respondents/Complainants the possession of the units, by the stipulated dates, sometime in the year 2012, nor refunding the huge amounts deposited by them, when even the development was not complete, in as much as, even the amenities were not available, the State Commission has partly allowed the Complaints, preferred by the Respondents/Complainants in these Appeals. The State Commission has directed the Opposite Parties to jointly and severally refund to the Complainants the amounts, deposited by each one of them, along with interest @ 15% compounded quarterly, from the respective dates of deposits; pay compensation ranging between Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- towards mental agony etc. and litigation costs, ranging between Rs.25,000/- and Rs.50,000/-, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the said order, with a default stipulation of penal interest @ 18% compounded quarterly, on the amount of refund and interest @ 15% compounded quarterly on the amount of compensation and litigation costs. In some cases, the interest prayed for by the Complainants @ 12% - 13% p.a., on the amount of deposits made by them with the Opposite Parties, was granted, with a default stipulation of penal interest @ 15% - 16% p.a. on the amount of refund and interest @ 12% - 13% p.a. on the amounts of compensation and litigation costs.

(2.) Since the afore-noted Complaints, involving more or less similar facts; common issues; and the same Opposite Parties, have been disposed of by the State Commission on identical lines, though by different orders, the present Appeals, arising out of the said Complaints, are being disposed of by this common order. However, for the sake of convenience, First Appeal No. 2296 of 2017 is treated as the lead case and the facts referred to hereinafter are also taken from the said Appeal, which would govern all the Appeals.

(3.) By paying a booking amount of Rs.2,57,000/- the Complainants had applied with the Opposite Parties for purchase of a residential floor in the project, christened as "Unihomes, Uniworld City", launched by them in Sector-107, Mohali. On 28.10.2009, the parties had entered into a Buyer's Agreement. In terms of the said Agreement, the remaining sale consideration was to be paid by the Complainants in instalments. The possession of the floor booked was required to be delivered by the Opposite Parties by October, 2012, i.e. within 36 months from the date of signing of the said agreement, after receipt of full consideration. However, the possession was not delivered within the stipulated period. Various requests of the Complainants to the Opposite Parties for doing the needful fell on deaf ears. On 15.02.2016, the Complainants got issued a legal notice to the Opposite Parties, which also evoked no response. In the said background, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties on the aforesaid counts, the Complainants filed the Complaint before the State Commission, praying for the reliefs mentioned therein.