Appearing Advocates : For the Complainants: Salil Paul, Sahil Paul, Advocates For the Opposite Parties: Alok Kumar Aggarwal, Anushruti, Anushka Sharma, Aanavi Oberai, Snigdha, Advocates.
Date of Judgment : 07-07-2026
Head Note :-
Subject
Judgment :-
Avm Jonnalagadda Rajendra, AVSM VSM - Member
1. The present Consumer Complaint has been filed against the Opposite Parties (OPs) seeking the following:
"(a) Grant permission to the complainants to file the present complaint on behalf of all allottees/buyers of residential flats in the building complex named as „Royal Nest‟ project located at GH-08B, Tech Zone IV, Greater Noida (West), UP, under section 12(1)(c) r/w Order 1 Rule 8 of the CPC, 1908;
(b) Allow any aggrieved allottee or allottees/buyers of residential flats in the building complex named as "Royal Nest" project located at GH-08B, Tech Zone IV, Greater Noida (West), UP, to join the present complainants for redressal of their disputes in light of the prayer made herein;
(c) Direct the OPs to handover the possession of the residential apartment along with the common facilities complete in all respects to the individual consumers immediately as per the Agreement the execute all the necessary and required documents in respect of the said apartment in favour of the Consumers;
(d) Direct the OPs to pay interest @24 % on the amount paid by the individual consumers from the committed date of possession till actual date of possession of the residential flat;
(e) In the alternative, direct OPs to refund the amounts paid by each allottee alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. compounded quarterly from the date of payments till realization;
(f) Direct that the individual consumers would not be liable for payment of any charges incurred due to any escalation in cost including enhanced service tax, GST if any, due to the default/delay on the part of the OPs in delivering possession on the stipulated date;
(g) Restrain the OPs from enhancing super area of the flats already sold to the Allottees/flat buyers;
(h) Direct the OPs to provide fire-fighting pipelines in a good condition which must comply with existing/relevant Indian Codes and Standards before offering possession of flats;
(i) Direct the OPs must complete the Society Club before offering possession of flats to complainants;
(j) Direct the OPs to pass on the difference of cost saved by providing local brand of tiles in place of brands mentioned in the agreement, and adjust this amount in final demand letter;
(k) Direct the OPs to pass on the differential cost between Wooden Flooring as per the Agreement and vitrified tiles used on their self-discretion while offering the possession of respective units;
(l) Direct the OPs that respective Flats of the complainants must be offered on the floor as mentioned in the Agreement which they had booked on the basis of Brochure/ approved maps by GNIDA;
(m) Direct the OPs to withdraw "Pre-Possession" letters immediately;
(n) Direct OPs to pay to complainants the delay penalty @Rs 5 per square foot of super area per month with interest @24 % p.a. compounded quarterly till the actual date of the possession and some cases 12% per annum penalty payable at 1% p.m of BSP from OP No.1 for delay in possession in favour of the complainant after due date as per Agreement;
(o) Direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rs. One Lakh Only) to each of the individual towards the cost of litigation;
(p) Direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 (Rs. Five Lakh Only) as compensation to each of the individual consumers towards the mental agony and harassment caused to them due to the delay and defaults on the part of the OPs;
(q) Pass such Order as this Commission my deem fit."
2. Brief facts of this case are that the complainants, a group of home buyers, seeking residential accommodation for own use and occupation sought allotment of residential flats in the project named „Royal Nest‟ situated at Plot No. GH-08B, Tech Zone IV, Greater Noida (West), UP. This plot measuring 24,288 Sq Mts was originally part of larger 86,037 Sq. Mts tract allotted by GNIDA in 2010 to a consortium involving VA Supertech Builders, ATS Infrastructure & Ors. To manage the project, the consortium formed a Special Purpose Company (SPC) known as M/s Omkar Nests Private Limited (OP-1), which secured the formal lease deed from GNIDA on 01.04.2011. OP Nos.2 to 5 are the Directors of the company. OP Nos. 6 and 7 are senior officials responsible for the administrative and marketing operations of the project. The company planned to construct 8 Towers on the site, representing to buyers that it has held full authority over the project's execution. Relying on the representations and advertisements issued by OPs regarding a time- bound delivery and high-standard construction, the complainants entered into Builder-Buyer Agreements (BBA) with the OP. According to the terms of these BBAs, construction was to be completed within 36 months (extendable to 40-48 months in certain cases) from the date of map approval. GNIDA approved the project maps on 05.02.2013, thereby setting the primary deadline for completion by 04.02.2016. Even after lapse of six-month grace period to cater for unforeseen circumstances, the final deadlines for delivery across various allotments lapsed between August 2016 and March 2017. The cause of action for the present complaint arose from ongoing deficiency in service and unfair trade practices by the OPs. Even though most complainants had paid 95% of the total sale consideration, the project had remained incomplete and uninhabitable. The complainants allege that while the Agreements provided for paying the OP a punitive interest rate of 24% p.a. in the event of any payment delay by the buyers, the developer failed to fulfil its reciprocal obligation of delivering the flats within the stipulated timeframe. The OPs have also unilaterally altered the floor designation by renaming the Podium level (an elevated parking/ recreational floor) as the Ground Floor. This move effectively shifted the complainants' allotted units one floor higher than what was originally booked and paid for, in direct violation of the GNIDA-approved maps and CPWD Indian Building Standards. Further, the complainants allege that the Partial Completion Certificates purportedly obtained for certain towers were secured through misrepresentation, as the buildings lacked basic functional infrastructure, including mandatory fire safety systems, permanent electricity connections, and piped gas facilities. They also alleged that the OPs failed to provide the promised Club House and Community Centre, which were explicitly represented to be operated on a No Profit No Loss basis. The developer also neglected to execute and register the Sub-Lease Deeds in favor of the allottees, despite receiving substantial payments. After several failed attempts to resolve these issues through meetings with the Directors and senior management, the complainants approached this Commission for relief.
3. Upon notice, the complaint was resisted by the OPs by filing their written statement asserting that the petition was misconceived and liable for dismissal. OPs contended that a detailed reply was only required after the Commission adjudicated upon the maintainability of the class action application under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act, 1986. They contended that a common relief was unjustified because the individual claims involved varying factors such as apartment size, total sale price, and the specific amounts paid till date, which necessitated individual assessment rather than a collective decree. OPs maintained that a representative complaint is maintainable only if it is filed for the benefit of all consumers sharing common grievances. They alleged that the class action was an attempt to shield genuine defaulters who breached the terms of their allotment and payment schedules. Regarding the project delays, they contended that the disruption was purely unintentional and caused by factors beyond their control. OPs brought out complex history of land acquisition, noting that while possession had been taken in 2008 and 2009, later the Allahabad High Court ordered payment of additional compensation of 64.70% and plot allotments for original landowners. The construction was specifically halted by GNIDA due to the non-approval of the Master Plan 2021 and by various Special Leave Petitions filed by farmers in 2012. Additionally, the National Green Tribunal issued orders stopping work due to dust pollution, levying penalties in 2015 and 2016. Other external factors cited included acute shortage of labour due to social schemes like NREGA and JNNURM, and a financial burden involving a Rs. 60 Crore loan from Punjab & Sind Bank with Rs. 24 Crore in interest payments. The OPs further objected that the Complainants were not Consumers within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act and were investors who booked the properties for commercial motive. Such profit-motivated transactions were excluded from the Act‟s protection. In support of their bonafide, OPs stated that all GNIDA dues were paid, 182 units were handed over and registration for 130 flats was completed. Emphasising that under Clause 20(A) of the BBA, the OP was entitled to reasonable extension of time for delays caused by Act of God, court orders or changes in Govt policy. Finally, the OPs disclosed that Complainant No.1 had already been offered possession in February 2018 but had failed to clear outstanding dues amounting to Rs.8,39,328, thereby they denied any unfair trade practices or deficiency in service on their part.
4. The Complainants filed rejoinder and reiterated the facts of the complaint.
5. The Complainants filed their evidence Affidavit and relied on list of buyers along with unit allotted to them (Exhibit AW 1/1), Lease Deed (Exhibit AW 1/2), GNIDA allotment letter No. PROP/BRS-03/2010 dated 18.08.2010 (Exhibit AW 1/3), Lease deed dated 01.04.2011 (Exhibit AW 1/4), advertisement for the residential complex inviting applications for allotment (Exhibit AW 1/5), agreement with M/s Omkar Nests Pvt. Ltd. in consonance with the MOU (Exhibit AW 1/6), Exhibit showing project completion dates and elapsed extension periods (Exhibit AW 1/7), list of construction defects noticed despite Part Occupancy Certificate (Exhibit AW 1/8), evidence regarding poor quality and workmanship of fire- fighting pipelines (Exhibit AW 1/9), evidence regarding status of the Society club under construction (Exhibit AW 1/10), and evidence/ Confirmation required regarding actual date of flat completion (Exhibit AW 1/11), evidence regarding unilateral increase in the plinth area of the booked flats without consent (Exhibit AW 1/12), and offer of possession dated 05.02.2018 by OPs (Exhibit AW 1/13).
6. OPs filed their evidence by affidavit and relied on Lease Deed (Exhibit RW-1/1), Letter dated 09.10.2012 (Exhibit RW-1/2), Notice by GNIDA dated 25.06.2015 (Exhibit RW-1/3), Sanction of Term loan from Punjab & Sind Bank (Exhibit RW-1/4), Letter dated 25.07.2017 (Exhibit RW-1/5), total allottees (Exhibit RW-1/6), revised payment plan (Exhibit RW-1/7), part OC dated 03.07.2018 (Exhibit RW-1/8), OC dated 14.01.2019 for entire Tower N-01 issued by GNIDA (Exhibit RW-1/9), BBA (Exhibit RW-1/10), Offer of Possession dated 05.02.2018 issued to Vikas Anand & Mrs. Smriti Kumari (Exhibit RW-1/11), intimation and reminders (Exhibit RW-1/12), GST payment (Exhibit RW-1/13), list of those with whom accounts have been settled (Exhibit RW-1/14), list of others whose payments are pending (Exhibit RW-1/15), list of allottees issued NDC (Exhibit RW-1/16), list of allottees who were handed over possession (Exhibit RW-1/17), list of allottees whose lease deeds were executed and registered (Exhibit RW-1/18), list of allottees to whom NOC was issued (Exhibit RW-1/19) and application with clearance certificate of fire, life safety, pollution, environment and the photographs of the project site depicting the work done (Exhibit RW-1/20).
7. The learned counsel for the Complainants reiterated the facts of the complaint and argued that there was gross and systematic failure on the part of OPs to deliver possession of the flats within the timelines contractually stipulated. While the BBAs were predominantly executed between February 2016 and March 2017, the contractual dates for possession were set as early as February 2016 in several cases. They referred Clause 20(A) and Clause 10 of Annexure C of the agreements, affirming that the developer was obligated to complete construction within 36 months from the date of approval of maps from GNIDA, with a maximum grace period of 6 months. It was asserted that the OPs failed to honour these timelines, leading to an inexcusable delay of over eight years. He further argued that the OPs unilaterally shifted the floor of the flats in nearly every case, allotting units one floor higher than what was originally booked and that this change was arbitrary and illegal, as evidenced by the sanctioned plans approved by GNIDA vide letter No.BO2641/44/POS/708 which revealed that the ground floor was marked for podium car parking, thereby shifting the numerical designation of all floors above it. It was further contended that while offers of possession were sporadically made in 2018, these were wrong offers pertaining to the incorrect floors, and for certain units such as N7- 1204 and N3-507, no offer of possession has been made to date.
Regarding financial liability, the learned counsel for the complainants affirmed that the total delayed penalty calculated @9% of the paid amount till 13.09.2025 stood at Rs. 13,16,09,640.29. Since the builder charged interest @ 24% on the default by the buyer, an equitable penalty of interest @ 24% per annum should be levied against OP to ensure parity and fairness. The specific actions of OPs i.e. violating this Commission's order dated 06.04.2018, falsifying sanctioned plans and creating third-party interests, constituted fraud and gross service deficiency. The complainants be granted immediate lawful possession of the flats, together with all corrective measures and registries. He sought directions to OPs to pay delay penalties, award floor-shift compensation @ floor PLC in the rate list with penalty, and pay litigation charges of Rs.5 lakh to each buyer, as all harassment and losses had been caused solely due to the misconduct of the OPs.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs argued that the present complaint was not maintainable as it constituted a class action suit which could not be permitted against the OPs. A common action did not lie since the relief, if any, needs to be awarded keeping in mind factors such as apartment size, total sale price and payments made, all of which vary in every case. He relied on Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors v Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.1 (2017) CPJ 1 and Ajay Aggarwal & Ors v Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt Ltd, (11.01.2017 NCDRC). He argued that the complainants were not consumers and placed reliance on Laxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, (1995) 3 SCC 583. As the project included commercial units, permitting such complaints would defeat the statutory exception wrt commercial investments. The delay in completion was due to reasons entirely beyond the control of OPs, specifically citing that GNIDA had stopped construction work due to non-approval of Master Plan 2021, which only resumed after letter dated 09.10.2012. Various SLPs filed by farmers and NGT orders regarding dust pollution, which included the imposition of penalties, intermittently halting the work. These led to a financial burden, requiring OPs to raise finance of Rs.60 Crores from Punjab & Sind Bank, incurring substantial interest. Other ground cited for delay included land acquisition protests by farmers, supply costs escalation and acute labour shortages resulting due to implementation of social schemes like NREGA and JNNURM. He argued that the project was completed in all respects, with part Occupancy Certificates (OC) issued on 18.01.2018 and 03.07.2018, and the final OC for the entire project issued on 14.01.2019. He asserted that all the allottees, including the complainants, were duly notified regarding the completion and were requested to make balance payments and take possession. However, they failed to make payments/take possession, despite OPs having already paid a sum equivalent to Rs.65,26,011 towards GST on demand. The complainants attempted to mislead this Commission by claiming that the units were not ready, while over 800 families have already taken possession and residing in the project. The complainants violated Clause 18 and Clause 16 of the BBA, as well as Section 19 of RERA, which mandated the allottees to take physical possession within two months of OC. He argued that this non-payment led OP into a financial crunch, making it difficult to service bank loans and land dues. OPs also suffered losses towards holding charges and maintenance costs for the units not yet taken over. He argued that this litigation was frivolous and filed only to evade their legitimate dues. He sought liberty to cancel the allotments of the defaulting complainants due to contractual and statutory breaches. He relied on Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt Ltd. v. Abhishek Khanna, (2021) 3 SCC 241; Arifur Rahman Khan & Ors v. DLF Southern Homes Pvt Ltd (2020) 16 SCC 512; Gunakara Giri v. Samiah International Builders Pvt. Ltd., NCDRC FA No. 196 of 2015; Anil Rawat & Anr v Clarion Properties Ltd. & Ors NCDRC CC No. 1512 of 2017; Dushyant Sood v. Vatika Ltd NCDRC CC No.1848 of 2017.
9. We have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for both the parties.
10. The main issues for consideration are whether OPs altered the floor designation, which resulted in the change of floor with respect to the flat booked by the complainants? Whether there was failure on the part of the OP in providing promised amenities? Whether there was delay in the offer of possession in terms of the BBAs? Whether the complainants are entitled for possession of flats booked by them, with completion of all facilities and delay compensation? Or, in the alternative, whether the Complainants are entitled for possession/refund of the amounts deposited, with interest and other consequential reliefs?
11. At the outset, the objection of the OPs regarding maintainability, it is clear from the record that the complainants are similarly situated homebuyers in the same residential project "Royal Nest", and their grievances emanate from a common cause of action, i.e., delay in completion, failure to hand over timely possession, unilateral alteration in floor positioning, and non-provision of promised facilities/amenities. Merely because the flat size, amounts paid etc vary, the representative character of the complaint does not become dissimilar. Thus, the OPs contention is unsustainable. The main controversy between the parties remains common and arises from identical contractual obligations undertaken by OPs qua the project. The OPs contention that they are investors and not consumers is equally untenable. No cogent evidence has been placed on record to establish that these were booked for resale or speculative investment. Mere ownership of a residential unit cannot by itself disentitle an allottee from seeking protection under the Act, 1986. The complainants, therefore, are "Consumers" under the Act.
12. Coming to the merits of the matter, it is an admitted position that the project maps were approved by GNIDA on 05.02.2013. Clause 20(A) of the BBA contemplated completion of construction within 36 months with a grace period of six months. Thus, possession ought to have been offered by August 2016 or, in certain cases, by September 2017. However, the record reveals that the OC were obtained only subsequently, including the final OC dated 14.01.2019. Even thereafter, disputes continued regarding the condition of the flats, common amenities, and altered floor positioning.
13. In Fortune Infrastructure (Now known As M/s. Hicon Infrastructure) v. Trevor D‟lima, (2018) 5 SCC 442, decided on 12.03.2018, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that:
"Moreover, a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the flats allotted to them and they are entitled to seek the refund of the amount paid by them, along with compensation. Although we are aware of the fact that when there was no delivery period stipulated in the agreement, a reasonable time has to be taken into consideration. In the facts and circumstances of this case, a time period of 3 years would have been reasonable for completion of the contract i.e., the possession was required to be given by last quarter of 2014. Further there is no dispute as to the fact that until now there is no redevelopment of the property. Hence, in view of the above discussion, which draw us to an irresistible conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the appellants and accordingly the issue is answered."
14. The complainants alleged incomplete fire-fighting systems, unfinished club facilities, deficiencies in infrastructure and the unilateral shifting of floor numbering by treating the podium level as ground floor. The sanctioned plans relied upon by the complainants prima facie indicate that the podium level was intended for parking and recreational purposes as per the design. The renumbering of the units gave them an impression as if the units booked by them were shifted by the OP one floor higher than that was originally represented at the time of booking. At the same time, during the course of hearing, as specifically recorded in the order dated 03.03.2026 passed by this Commission, the learned counsel for the complainants submitted that, despite their reservations regarding the changed floor positioning, the complainants are willing to accept possession of flats offered by OPs, provided they are granted reasonable delay compensation from the committed date of possession till the date of actual handing over of possession. The learned counsel for the OPs, on the other hand, also expressed willingness to hand over possession subject to the Complainants paying balance consideration, maintenance charges, holding charges, and payment of such interest as determined by this Commission from the date of possession due till the date of offer of possession with OC.
15. In view of the aforesaid subsequent developments, the dispute as regards cancellation of allotments or refusal of possession no longer survives for substantive adjudication. The issue has now narrowed down primarily to the entitlement of the complainants to compensation for delayed possession and the financial adjustments between parties.
16. The justification furnished by OPs wrt delay, namely litigation concerning land acquisition, proceedings before the Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court, SLPs filed by farmers, restrictions imposed by GNIDA, NGT orders on pollution control, labour shortages and financial constraints, may explain certain intermittent disruptions in construction. However, these cannot justify the prolonged delay. A builder undertaking a large- scale project is expected to account for foreseeable contingencies and cannot unduly delay and postpone the delivery of possession.
17. As regards the duration for which the OP is liable to pay delay compensation, we place reliance on the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Fortune Infrastructure (Now known As M/s. Hicon Infrastructure) v. Trevor D‟lima, (2018) 5 SCC 442, decided on 12.03.2018. Therefore, in the present case, the liability of OP Builder to pay delay compensation to the complainants who took possession commences from the date three years after signing the BBA.
18. It is also not disputed that a substantial number of complainants had already paid nearly the entire sale consideration. The record further indicates that the OPs themselves charged penal interest @24% p.a. from buyers in cases of delayed payments. Though the complainants have sought parity by claiming compensation at the same rate, such rate, in our considered view, would be excessive and punitive in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
19. Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Rajnish Sharma v M/s Business Park Town Planners Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 951 decided on 24.09.2025, held that where a builder levied an exorbitant rate of interest upon a consumer for delayed payment, principles of equity and fairness mandate that the same standard be applied against the builder for its own default in handing over possession. The Court clarified that there is no rigid principle of law that the rate of interest charged by the builder must always be granted to the buyer, as the reasonableness of interest varies from case to case and depends upon the facts and circumstances involved. Relevant paras of the said judgement are reproduced as under:
"4.7 Thus, the conduct of the respondent has been full of blemishes throughout.
4.8 Finally, the respondent charged the appellant interest @ 18% p.a. whereas agreed to give back to the appellant the principal amount with 9% interest, which is in defiance of logic and reason. Respondent, for its default, should have been judged by the same standard and made to pay back 18% interest.
...
7. We start by analyzing the arguments raised by respondent.
8. It was argued that this Court has consistently rejected the claim of parity raised by buyers. Various judgments of this Court, which were cited, have been noted. On perusal thereof, we find that in all such cases this Court did not give elaborate reasons for rejecting the claim for parity but reduced/increased the rate of interest based on other factors peculiar to the facts and circumstances of each case, such as the prevailing market conditions, lockdown due to COVID, et cetera. ...
11. Suffice it to say, there is no principle of law that interest in default charged by builder can never be granted to the buyer.
12. Law is well settled that the amount of interest should be reasonable. What is reasonable varies from case to case. The same is to be granted considering the facts and circumstances of each case. The series of judgments cited by the respondent to buttress its argument that this Court has consistently granted interest @ 9% p.a. will make no difference to the decision in this lis, as all the said cases were decided in light of the peculiar facts of each case.
...
14. As per clause 22 of the AGREEMENT, possession of the plot was to be handed over within 24 months of sanction of service plans of the entire colony. Admittedly, no offer for possession was made until the year 2018. The conduct of the respondent in the interregnum is also worthy of a discussion. ...
18. Having noted thus, we agree with Mr. Nayyar that before compensation can be granted by the NCDRC, actual loss must be proved to have been suffered by the consumer. The objective of granting compensation cannot be altered such that it amounts to a windfall gain to the other party. Proof of actual loss would require evidence to be tendered, for, it is a guiding lamp for grant of compensation. Be that as it may, in this case, we are not deciding the actual loss suffered by the appellant. We are only concerned with deciding the rate of interest to be awarded to the appellant on the principal amount paid by him to the respondent.
19. Keeping in mind the overall conduct of the respondent: the delay caused by it in offering the plot, the fact that the respondent charged the appellant delay compensation @ 18% p.a. on the due amount, and the long wait that the appellant had to endure over a period of a decade, causing harassment and anxiety, which are writ large, we find that this is an appropriate case where refund of the principal amount with interest @ 9% p.a., as awarded by NCDRC, will not serve the ends of justice.
20. In view of the conduct of the respondent, it cannot be permitted to escape with a nominal liability for its default, while it charged interest @ 18% on default committed by the appellant. Although, the rate of interest charged by the builder cannot be granted to the buyer as a rule of thumb, however, in the present case, equity and fairness demands that the respondent be put to the same rigours for charging 18% interest and face consequences similar to those imposed on the appellant for default committed by him. If we hold otherwise, we will be perpetuating a manifestly wrong bargain.
21. We, therefore, substitute the rate of interest awarded by the NCDRC and increase it from 9% to 18% per annum, while keeping the other terms intact. Respondent shall refund the requisite amount within a period of two months from date."
20. Insofar as the issue relating to altered floor positioning is concerned, while there are assertions by both the partiers and the complainants are aggrieved, since the complainants themselves have expressed willingness to accept the presently allotted flats, no separate finding or direction with respect to the same is considered necessary.
21. Applying the aforesaid principles to the present case, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be adequately met if the complainants are allowed possession, along with compensation for delay in the form of simple interest @ 6% per annum on the amounts deposited by each complainant from the respective dates commencing from three years after the they executed the BBA till 14.01.2019, the date the offer of possession by the OP with OC. On the amount so determined as delay compensation up to 14.01.2019, the OP is also liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from 15.01.2019 till handing over of the possession to respective complainants.
22. In the given circumstances, in addition to delay, certain ambiguity with respect to the level of respective flats persisted. Due to which the Complainants were aggrieved and did not take possession. Therefore, OPs shall not levy any Holding Charges from them. The Complainants are, however, liable to pay Maintenance Charges for the period from one month after the respective offers of possession with OC.
23. The OPs are, accordingly, directed to notify the Final Statement of Accounts (FSA) as directed above to each of the complainants, strictly limiting to the balance consideration as per the terms of contract, without any delay penalty and reconciling the delay compensation payable by the OP and maintenance charges payable by complainants, within 20 days from the date of this order. On receipt of the same, the complainants shall pay the entire dues within 15 days thereafter. On receipt of the dues, OPs shall hand over the possession of respective flats to complainants complete in all respects, together with all essential services and execute necessary conveyance documents, within further period of 30 days. The complainants shall bear the costs towards stamp duty, registration and associated administrative charges.
24. In addition to the above, liberty is also granted to such complainants who do not wish to accept possession of the flats to seek refund with delay compensation. Such option shall be exercised and notified to the OPs within 30 days from the date of this order. These complainants shall be entitled to refund of the respective amounts deposited along with simple interest @ 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till the date of offer of possession with OC on 14.01.2019. On the amount so determined as refund and compensation for delay up to 14.01.2019, the OP is also liable to pay interest @ 7% per annum from 15.01.2019 till final payment. This payment shall be made within 60 days from the date of this order. In the event of default, the interest liability for both the terms shall be shall be @ 10% per annum.
25. The complainants are also entitled to litigation costs of Rs.50,000 to each complainant.
26. With the above directions, CC No. 762 of 2018 is disposed of.
27. All pending Applications, if any, are also disposed of accordingly.
