SURENDER Vs. OM PRAKASH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in these four Revision Petitions by Opposite Party No.3 in original Complaints, namely Surender, a Real Estate Developer, is to the four orders, all dated 6.2016, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Panchkula (for short "the State Commission") in FA/ FA 939 942/2015. By the impugned orders, the State Commission has affirmed the orders dated 23.2014 & 19.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short "the District Forum") in Consumer Complaints No.212, 213, 214 & 216/2013 and has thus dismissed the Appeals preferred by the Petitioner.

(2.) Since the factual matrix leading to the filing of the Complaints involved in all these cases is identical and further, all the Appeals have been disposed of by the State Commission by a common order, all these Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

(3.) In the first instance, while allowing the Complaints preferred by Respondents No.1 in all these Revision Petitions, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties in not delivering possession of the plots agreed to be sold by them, despite having received full consideration therefor, the District Forum had directed all the Opposite Parties to jointly and severally refund to the Complainants the amounts received from them along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit till realization; 2,200/- as compensation for the mental agony and harassment caused to them and 2,200/- as litigation expenses.