1. Present Complaint has been preferred on behalf of complainant seeking inter alia refund of amount deposited for allotment of flat in the residential project Amadeus Sector 143, Noida undertaken by OP No. 1 to 4 with following reliefs:-

                          *a) to refund the amount of Rs.37,07,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 18% from 15.07.2014 till actual payment;

                          b) to pay the entire outstanding dues, interest, and all allied charges including foreclosure charges to the HDFC Limited against the home loan of the complainant upon the apartmentfiat in question _ and got issued the NOC/No dues certificate from the HDFC Limited and hand over the same to the complainant;

                          c) to pay the complainant as compensation an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs Only);

                          d) to pay the cost of the present complaint in favour of the complainant..."

2. -- In brief, complainant booked a residential flat No. C-2002 on 20"

                          Floor, Tower-C in the residential project 'Amadeus' situated at Plot No.GH-02, Sector-143, Part of Logix Blossom Zest, Expressway, NOIDA. Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 are stated to have entered into a joint development agreement dated 15.02.2013 for development of aforesaid project and sale of units built thereupon. An amount of Rs.37,07,000/- was paid by the complainant personally out of total consideration of Rs.2,38,25,625/- in terms of agreement for allotment dated 15.07.2014. Further, a quadripartite agreement dated 15.07.2014 was executed with HDFC Ltd. to facilitate the loan amount of Rs.1,78,69,219/- to the complainant. A loan agreement dated ' 31.07.2014 was further executed by the complainant with HDFC Ltd. for _the said purpose. It is further the case of complainant that an amount of Rs.1,23,10,369/- was disbursed to the opposite parties by HDFC Bank . towards the sale consideration of the flat in addition to amount of Rs.37,07,000/- paid by the complainant personally. As such, total amount of Rs.1,60,17,369/- is claimed to have been paid by. the complainant through own funds as well as by availing loan from HDFC Ltd.

3. It is further the case of the complainant that in terms of clause 8 of Memorandum of Understanding dated 14.07.2014, opposite parties agreed that within a time frame of 33 to 36 months from the date of first disbursement from bank, if the purchaser is not satisfied with the construction timeline etc., he will be at liberty to offer the said apartment | to opposite parties for re-purchase @ Rs.7,225/- per sq. ft. plus service tax, interest and late fee or any other charges etc. paid by the complainant. Also, in terms of clause 5 & 6 of Memorandum of Understanding dated 14.07.2014, opposite parties represented to the complainant that since the housing loan is under subvention scheme, there will be no liability on the purchaser towards interest, foreclosure charges, processing fee or any other charges levied by the bank for the first 36 months and, thereafter, if the purchaser has offered the flat to the opposite parties for buy-back.

4. Complainant further avers that in terms of Mou, re-purchase shall be executed by the opposite parties within a period of 30 days from the expiry of 36 months from the date of first disbursement from the bank and in the event of any delay in making the re-purchase amount to the complainant, opposite parties shall be liable to pay interest @ 22% p.a. for the period of delay on total re-purchase amount.

5. The grievance of the complainant is that despite expiry of almost 2.5 years from the date of allotment of flat, there had been no progress 'in the project and, as such, an option was exercised by the complainant under clause 8 of MoU seeking re-purchase of flat by the opposite parties. _The same was acknowledged by OPs vide e-mail dated 17.04.2017 but they conveyed that because of adverse market conditions, currently, it was not possible for the developer to buy-back the flat of the complainant and sought extension of time for option of re- purchase. Further, vide e-mail dated 16.05.2017, it was assured by opposite parties that the flat would be re-purchased. In the meantime, an addendum to MoU dated 19.08.2017 was executed between the complainant and opposite parties whereby it was agreed that in addition:

                          to the extension of time, all the terms and conditions of MoU dated 14.07.2014 shall remain the same. The opposite parties even thereafter failed to complete the project. Further, vide e-mail dated 13.11.2018, opposite parties again requested the complainant for further extension of time for period of two years and assurance was given that on or before the extended period, re-purchase obligation would be met. Since opposite parties defaulted the timeline of 48 months including the grace period for completing the project, present complaint has been preferred by the complainant for refund of amount.

6. The right of opposite parties to file the written version was closed vide order dated 15.11.2022 as they failed to file the written version | within the maximum period of 45 days in terms of Section 13(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

7. Complainant led his evidence by way of affidavit and relevant documents were exhibited as Ex.CW-1/1 to Ex.CW-1/10. Ex.CW-1/1 is the copy of agreement for allotment of flat dated 15.07.2014; Ex.CW-1/2 is the copy of Memorandum of Understanding dated 14.07.2014 executed by complainant and opposite party no.1 company; Ex.CW-1/3 is the copy of quadripartite agreement dated 15.07.2014 executed by opposite party no.1 company, opposite party no. 4 company, HDFC Ltd. and complainant; Ex.CW-1/4 is the copy of home loan agreement dated 31.07.2014 executed by complainant with HDFC Ltd. for loan of Rs.1,78,69,219/-; Ex.CW-1/5 is the copy of bank statement evidencing the disbursal of amount to the opposite parties; Ex.CW-1/6 is the copy of e-mail dated 17.04.2017 sent by complainant to opposite parties for re-purchase of flat; Ex.CW-1/7 is the copy of e-mail of opposite parties to complainant seeking extension of time for re-purchase of flat; Ex.CW-1/8 is copy of addendum of Memorandum of Understanding dated 19.08.2017 executed by and between the complainant and opposite parties whereby it was agreed that in addition of extension of time, all the terms and conditions of MoU dated 14.07.2014 shall remain the - same; Ex.CW-1/9 is the copy of e-mail dated13.11.2018 of the opposite parties to complainant seeking further extension of time by 02 years to meet out re-purchase obligation and Ex.CW-1/10 is the copy of legal-notice dated 17.09.2019 along with postal receipt.

8. Opposite parties were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 27.02.2026.

9. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterates the factual position and submits that since opposite party failed to complete the residential project despite lapse of substantial period, reimbursement of amount paid by the complainant be made with interest @ 18% p.a. An amount of Rs.1 crore is stated to have been already paid by the complainant to HDFC Ltd in March, 2021 in order to clear the part outstanding amount 'towards loan and balance amount of Rs.42,09,017/- is claimed to be outstanding against the settlement of aforesaid loan as on 23.05.2023.

10. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and given:

                          considered thought to the contentions raised.

                          From the pleadings on record and on the basis of affidavit of evidence filed on behalf of the complainant, it remains uncontroverted that opposite parties failed to deliver the flat as assured to the complainant despite having received substantial amount of consideration in terms of agreement to sell dated 15.07.2014. In the absence of any written version having been filed on record, averments made in the complaint remain unchallenged. The facts and circumstances clearly

                          - reflect deficiency on the part of the opposite parties No. 1 to 4 to deliver the flat despite having received consideration of Rs.1,60,17,369/- out of total consideration of Rs.2,38,25,625/-. The amount of Rs.37,07,000/- admittedly has been paid by the complainant out of personal funds while loan amount of Rs.1,23,10,369/- was disbursed by HDFC Bank. A total amount of Rs.1,60,17,369/- is stated to have been paid by the complainant, out of which an amount of Rs.1 crore is further stated to © have been partly paid to the Bank by the complainanbt towards partial settlement of loan amount obtained from HDFC Bank.

11. With regards to compensation payable in such refund matters, Hon'ble Apex Court in Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Sushma Ashok Shiroor, Civil Appeal No. 6044 of 2019 decided on 07.04.2022 held as under:-

                          "We are of the opinion that for the interest payable on the amount deposited to be restitutionary and also compensatory, interest has to be paid from the date of the deposit of the amounts. The Commission in the Order impugned has granted interest from the date of last deposit. We find that this does not amount to restitution. Following the decision in DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DS Dhanda and in modification of the direction issued by the Commission, we direct that the interest on the refund shall be payable from the dates of deposit. Therefore, the Appeal filed by purchaser deserves to be partly allowed. The interest shall be payable from the dates of such deposits.

                          At the same time, we are of the opinion that the interest of 9% granted by the Commission is fair and just and we find no reason to interfere in the appeal filed by the consumer for enhancement of interest."

Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. v. D.S. Dhanda, Il (2019) CPJ 117 (SC) held that multiple compensation for singular deficiency is not justifiable.

12. However, it needs to be kept in perspective that in terms of clause 8 of MoU dated 14.07.2014, owner/developer undertook the liability to pay interest @ 22% p.a. for the period of delay on the total re-purchase price payable to the purchaser/investor, in case of delay in making the payment of re-purchase price. Further in terms of clause 9.8 of Agreement to Sell dated 15.07.2014, in case of default by the allottee, he shall be liable to make the payment of interest @ 18% p.a. on the outstanding amount of consideration and other dues.

                                ' .. 43. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances and in view of clear deficiency on the part of opposite parties to deliver the flat, we are of the considered view that it shall be equitable to direct the opposite parties to refund the entire amount of Rs.1,60,17,369/- with simple interest @ 11% p.a. from the date of respective deposits till date of actual payment within eight weeks of passing of this Order. In the event of default of payment within eight weeks of passing of this Order, opposite parties shall be liable to pay the amount due with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of default till realization. The liability of OP-1 to 4 shall be joint and several. Out of the total amount payable by the OPs to the complainant, outstanding balance payment towards home loan shall be paid to HDFC Bank in the first instance after making due adjustments of the amount, if any, paid by the complainant to the Bank in the interregnum and balance amount shall, thereafter, be paid to the complainant, OPs are further liable to pay litigation cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) to the complainant. Complaint is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. A copy of this Order be provided to both the parties by the Registry.