Bharatkumar Pandya. Member

1. This is a complaint involving a developer-complainant/service recipient dispute. The brief facts as stated in the complaint are that the complainant jointly with his brother D.P. Verma entered into a collaboration agreement dated 16.04.2012, as per which, the old property standing at residential plot no. 119 measuring 234 sq. yards in Navjeevan Vihar, New Delhi was to be demolished by, and new property as per the building plans to be applied for and obtained by the developer-OP M/s Chopra Construction, proprietor Shri Praleen Chopra, to be constructed by him. As per the copy of collaboration agreement, filed as annexure I along with the complaint, in substance, the developer, after he was handed over vacant possession of the old building, was to apply for building plan and obtain it: the developer would pay an amount of Rs.2.25 crores as consideration for "builder allocation in the property"

(clause 6); and the builder shall construct and complete the building at his own cost and risk and shall be entitled, as per clause 16, to the entire 2nd and 3rd floor along with terrace rights and other entitlements as detailed in clause 16. As per clause 15, the builder is obliged to obtain Form B1 and B2 from MCD, and further, if the builder fails to obtain and hand over completion certificate to the owners before handing over the possession within 15 months of obtaining the building plan approval, the builder shall be liable for penalty of Rs.25 lakhs. Similarly, in clause 28, 29 and 37, further obligations of the builder are specified according to which, for belated completion beyond stipulated 15 months, a penalty of Rs.5 lakhs per month is provided, and builder is also obliged to create a maintenance corpus of Rs.10 lakhs for the joint benefit of all occupants. The main allegation is (a) that there is delay of five months in completion/handing over, entitling the complainant for compensation of Rs. 25 lacs

(b) absence of completion certificate and maintenance corpus: Rs. 35 lacs (c) construction deficiencies, mental agony etc. The complaint in general makes the allegations of deficient service, belated handing over possession and deficient/faulty construction. For these deficiencies, the complainant has claimed a total compensation of Rs. 1,04,58,119/-, in addition to which Rs.5 lakhs for mental agony and Rs.1 lakh as cost has been claimed.

2. The opposite parties denied all the allegations and raised multiple preliminary objections in the reply filed on 17.05.2017. The first critical objection raised by the opposite party is that the complainant has deliberately, fraudulently and maliciously concealed not only the critical facts but also critical documents having a serious and direct bearing on the controversy raised by him which show the lack of bonafides and clean hands in filing the complaint. It is stated that subsequent to the collaboration agreement dated 16.04.2012, two registered sale deeds were jointly executed on 08.08.2012 for Rs.2.65 crores (correct amount Rs.2.25 crores) by Shri S.P. Verma and co-owner Shri D.P. Verma under which, the entire 2nd floor, and entire terrace rights over the 2nd floor along with further rights as narrated therein along with total 45% undivided shares in the ownership rights in said plot of land were transferred to the OP builder for valuable consideration. The OP also annexed the copies of these registered documents as annexure OP-1. Based on these documents, it is contended in para 1 that it is only after the execution of these documents on 08.08.2012 that the demolition was started by the OP builder. Apart from this, the OP has also raised preliminary objection with regard to non-joinder of Shri D.P. Verma who has equal stake in the matter. It is further contended that a fresh memorandum of understanding in suppression of the collaboration agreement of 16.04.2012 was executed on 07.08.2012 which though has been filed by the complainant as annexure III, no averment or allegation has been made on the strength thereof in the complaint. As per the OP, the execution of this document dated 07.08.2012 nullified, erased and completely eclipsed the earlier collaboration agreement of 16.04.2012 which was neither acted upon nor did it remain executable. The registered sale-deeds annexure OP-1 and subsequent MOU dated 07.08.2012 brought about substantial changes mutually brought about in the legal relationship of the parties. As on 08.08.2012, the OP was already owner of nearly 45% portion of the whole old property validly acquired by way of payment of valid consideration, and as per MOU dated 07.08.2012, the parties have been rightly described as "parties hereto are the beneficial owners and in possession of their respective portions" on page 41 and 42 of the file. As such, neither the registered sale deeds nor the MOU dated 07.08.2012 have even any reference to the earlier collaboration agreement dated 16.04.2012 which clearly and unambiguously bring out the joint intentions of the parties to abandon the collaboration agreement in favour of fresh MOU and registered documents executed on 7th and Sth of August, 2012. It is further contended that notably and significantly, though the complainant has relied on clause 9, 15, 24, 28 and 29 of the collaboration agreement, no such corresponding obligations of the builder were forming part of the MOU dated 07.08.2012, and, therefore, the whole foundation of the complaint does not survive. In reply to the relief claimed on the basis of the averments and documents as referred to in para 3 of the complaint, it is the contention in the reply that even the MOU dated 07.08.2012 was without any consideration and therefore, null and void from the beginning and as such, the purpose of the said MOU was merely to enable the OP to re-develop the building and utilize his own share beneficially. Heavy emphasis has also been placed on page 68, filed as annexure VIII to the complaint, which is the possession taking-over letter signed by the complainant and Mr. D.P. Verma stating therein that the satisfactory possession has been obtained on 19.05.2014 in terms of MOU dated 08.08.2012 and further that neither party has any claim against each other vis-a-vis the same MOU or otherwise. On the strength of this document, it has been urged that all rights and obligations with respect to the transaction entered into between the parties by way of MOU dated 08.08.2012 fully and completely stood satisfied and thus extinguished without any further obligation remaining on either of the parties including the OP. Therefore, the complaint filed on 05.08.2015 after nearly 14 months of taking over the satisfactory possession is without any merit and is based on misrepresentation of facts and suppression of material information and documents and therefore the complaint deserves to be dismissed. Preliminary objection has also been raised on the ground that the complainant is not recipient of any service from the OP and that the complainant is in fact equally a partner in the joint collaboration agreement and also of nonjoinder of Mr. D.P. Verma.

3. The rejoinder was filed on 20.08.2018 and the evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the parties respectively on 20.08.2018 and 06.04.2021. The written arguments have also been filed by the parties. On 07.11.2023, following order was passed:

                          "Mr. Shubham, learned counsel for the complainant, has advanced his submissions contending that apart from the other claims set out in the complaint there are three major violations of the collaboration agreement for which deficiency has been pleaded in the complaints. The first is about the builder not having provided for a corpus of Rs. 10,00,000/- as per Clause 37 of the said agreement the second is that the builder failed to complete the building within the stipulated period and there was a delay of five months hence invoking Clause 28 the complainant prays for award of compensation in tune with the same at the rate of Rs. 5,00,000/- per month plus rent. It may be clarified that the learned counsel has stated that even though in paragraph 13 the delay has been referred to as seven months the actual claim as per the amended complaint is only for five months. It has also been contended by the learned counsel that there were several damages that have surfaced on account of faulty construction as stated in paragraph 17 for which also compensation has been sought.

                          He further submits that the other terms and conditions were not followed and even otherwise the manner in which the possession was sought to be delivered was also delaved for which also certain compensation has been claimed under the complaint.

                          The complaint was admitted after amendment on 05.04.2017 and that thereafter the matter has proceeded on exchange of pleadings and filing of affidavit of evidence. The complaint had been dismissed on 22.02.2019 and was thereafter restored on 27.02.2020.

                          The order sheets indicate that Mr. N.K. Vohra and Ms. Sonali Chopra had been earlier appearing in this case. However later on from 05.04.2021 it is only the name of Ms. Sonali Chopra which has been shown as the counsel for the opposite party and whose name is not shown in the printed cause list today. Learned counsel for the complainant may inform the learned counsel for the opposite party about the next date fixed in the matter so that the complaint may proceed for further hearing.

                          Let the matter be listed on 09.02.2024. "

4. During the course of hearing, Mr Jorawar Singh, the counsel for the complainant, has put heavy reliance on the collaboration agreement of April 2012 and read relevant clauses 9, 28, 15 and 37 therefrom to support the allegations of deficiency in service with regard to delayed possession and non-obtaining of completion certificate, and the quantum of compensation as claimed in the complaint on the basis of these clauses. It is first contended that the affidavit of the OP dated 08.08.2012 (pg. 33-38) duly refers to and records both the documents, i.e. the collaboration agreement of 16.04.2012 and MOU dated 07.08.2012, implying that the parties had consciously agreed to and had undertaken the obligations under both these documents, and further, that both the documents remained equally efficacious. As per the counsel, the Moll dated 06.08.2012 does not extinguish the rights already created under Collaboration Agreement. The building plan is approved on 29.09.2012 and the due date for handing over the possession is therefore 29.12.2013, but the possession was handed over without any completion certificate only on 19.05.2014, thus entitling the complainant for delay compensation/penalty of 25 lacs at Rs. 5 lacs PM and reimbursement of the rent of Rs. 2.2 lacs for the same period as per clause 9 and 28 of Agreement dated 16.04.2012. Not obtaining the completion certificate (clause 15) and not creating the maintenance corpus fund of Rs. 10 lacs clause 37) are admitted position for which also the complainant is entitled to total compensation of Rs. 35 lacs. Submitting that the OP is habitual in providing deficient services, and stating that the OP's such deficient service has been noted also in three other instances reflected in respective decisions or orders, Mr. Singh drew our attention to para V of his written arguments.

5. On the other hand, the counsel for OP has reiterated the preliminary objections. First objection is that the complainant is not "consumer" in as much as (a) no consideration has moved from complainant to the OP and (b) The composite transaction or redevelopment is that of a joint venture, and not of any service availed by the Complainant. Second objection, on the basis of reply para 1 and rejoinder para 1, is that the complainant has not approached the Commission with clean hands and has suppressed the registered deeds and underlying sale-transactions for which the OP paid total consideration of Rs. 2.25 crores. It is highlighted that the complainant in rejoinder para 1 has not categorically rebutted the allegations in para 1 of the reply of the complainant. On merits, it is the fundamental contention that in view of unconditional possession letter dated 19.05.2014 and emphasized the clear-cut satisfaction and undertaking that "Now neither party has any claim against each other vis-a-vis the said MOU dated 08.08.2012, or otherwise" that there are no outstanding obligations of either of the parties thereafter. Thus, with the volitional execution thereof, the said MOU stands fully performed and the executant therein "stands finally and fully discharged from all his obligations what-so-ever", and therefore, no complaint based on the said MOU can be raised. As per the counsel, despite such repeated references to such possession letter in the reply filed by the OP, no specific denial or credible rebuttal or explanation thereof has been filed in the_ rejoinder filed by the complainant. Therefore, considering the serious unrebutted preliminary objection of intentional mala fide suppression of the material evidence of sale-deeds of 08.08.2012, the complaint needs to be dismissed on the preliminary ground of unclean hands and on the principle of suppressio veri and suggestion falsi. Second, the complaint is vexatious and meritless when the Possession document duly recorded conscious discharge of the OP "from all obligations under MOD dated 07.08.2012 or otherwise". The completion certificate is stated not obtainable at all because of the insistence of the complainant to "utilise all available FAR" in violation of approved plan, which involved the mutually agreed deviation from the approved plan including that in the portion of the complainant's share. In view of all these facts, as per the OP, the complaint needs dismissal.

6. We have carefully gone through the records. We find no merit in the preliminary objections of the OP on the grounds of the complainant not being a consumer u/s 2(1 )(d) or of nonjoinder of Mr. Deepak Verma. The MoU dated 08.08.2012, the OP has undertaken to demolish the old and construct the new building in consideration of privilege, possession and right to demolish the complainant's floors and construct the additional floors and in the process provide the services of brand new construction to the complainant. Complainant, having parted with the rights in the ownership of floors and having granted constructive possession, has passed on valuable consideration for obtaining the services of the OP. There is neither any commercial purpose nor any joint venture in the transaction, and hence, complainant is very much a consumer. We, in light of OP's post-possession mail dated 26.06.2014, also do not find merit in the contention of the OP that the epossession-cum-discharge voucher dated 19.05.2014 fully extinguished the legal relationship between the parties. However, we are of the opinion that the OP is certainly partially right in submitting that the complainant has not approached this commission with fully clean hands, and has in fact, attempted to twist the facts and hide relevant documents and explanations and thereby unnecessarily and unduly mislead this Commission. There is no doubt at all that the critical fact of execution of the registered sale-deeds filed by OPs as document OP-1 has been carefully and tactfully suppressed by the complainant to create a wrong picture and to twist the facts. In the rejoinder filed, there is no proper explanation and the allegations of the OP in the reply have not been even attempted to be addressed. Further, there is absolutely no averment in the complaint to explain in a bona fide manner as to how the transactions and negotiations progressed so as to necessitate the execution of registered sale-deeds, concurrent execution of fresh MOU, execution of two affidavits by the OP, and the issuance of receipts for payments which already stood duly recorded in the registered sale-deeds. The MOU and the registered sale-deeds are indeed concurrently made on 7th and Sth of August, 2012 and there is no valid reason or occasion for the complainant to have avoided referring and explaining the chain of events. The complainant, after relying on Collaboration Agreement dated 16.04.2012 for alleging deficiencies and claiming compensation, also misleadingly filed MOU dated 07.08.2012 as Annexure III to the complaint, but at the same time, without explaining why the same was executed and how it affects or does not affect his claim in the complaint. The same is only tactically and cleverly filed in an attempt to somehow avoid adverse finding of suppression while at the same time wholly avoiding commenting on the import thereof and thus in substance avoiding our meaningful attention thereto. Agreeing with the OP, we also find the averments in para 3 of the complaint to be completely misleading, in as much as two agreements, i.e. Collaboration Agreement and MOU, which are substantially different, are mentioned, but at the same time, without specifying or clarifying as to which agreement is being referred to while still relying effectively only on collaboration agreement. Para 5-7 of the complaint are equally and intentionally false and misleading. The reference to any "advance" or "due date" or "clause 8 and 9 of the collaboration agreement" are patently false. Most critically, the "Collaboration Agreement" dated 16.04.2012 (Annexure-I) is self-contradictory. Clause 6 thereof records, surprisingly, that the payments by the OP including those made in the later month of even August 2012 have been recorded as "received by the complainant and his brother". These payments match with those recorded in the registered sale-deeds filed by the OPs which, incidentally, were suppressed and not filed by the complainant. Clause 10 of the collaboration agreement records that the "owners have already handed over the possession of the property to the builder" when it is the complainant's own case that possession was handed over by the complainant was subsequent to the month of June when the rented house was obtained. It is for the complainant to have averred or explained in the complaint itself about these patent inconsistencies and contradictions in the collaboration agreement when the same document is relied upon, which also has not been done. There is no doubt in our mind, therefore, that the complainant has not indeed approached the Commission with full facts and has attempted to withhold critical information and evidence. At the same time, however, the respondent also has not explained the mutual conduct of the parties leading to the present complaint and therefore we would proceed to examine the merits.

7. We are of the opinion that we would need to assess the cumulative import in light of the chronology of the four critical documents before we start considering the allegations of deficient service as made in the complaint. The memorandum of understanding dated 07.08.2012 does not make any reference to the collaboration agreement dated 16.04.2012. Moreover, the document of collaboration agreement, as placed on record by the complainant does not appear to be wholly credible in as much as clause 6 of the said agreement is categorically inconsistent with the date of the execution of the documents. It is also inconsistent when it records that as on 16.04.2012 a sum of Rs.2.25 crores stood "already paid" to the owners, that the "owners have already handed over the possession" and that the "owners have executed the sale deeds of builder's allocation in favour of the builder", when these events admittedly took place after 16.04.2012. To that extent, we find force in contention of the'OP that the collaboration agreement dated 16.04.2012 effectively got subsumed into the Memorandum of Understanding dated 07.08.2012. The two affidavits dated 08.08.2012 filed by the complainant (page 33 to 38), however, makes mention, of both the collaboration agreement as also of the MOU. Along with these developments, the collaboration agreement has undergone a sizeable and significant transformation in as much as the OP, through the registered sale deeds executed by the complainant on 08.08.2016, became full owners of the "entire second floor" for Rs.1.15 crores and "entire terrace over the entire second floor along with right to construct the third floor" for a consideration of Rs. 1.10 crores. The payments mentioned in the collaboration agreement of 16.04.2012 actually found place in these registered documents as consideration paid by the OP for acquiring those rights in the old structure. Therefore, the MOU dated 07.08.2012 describe the parties, in contradiction to how they were described in the collaboration agreement, as "the parties hereto are the beneficial owners and in possession of their respective portions". When the mention of the collaboration agreement in affidavits dated 08.08.2012 is seen in light of MOU dated 07.08.2012, notarized and registered on 08.08.2012, it becomes crystal clear that the parties intended the relationship to be governed not by the collaboration agreement anymore but only by the MOU.

Therefore, the reliance of the complainant for alleging deficiency and claiming compensation without correspondingly referring to MOU, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the OP, is not at all justified. Moreover, as per the possession letter on page 68, on the face of it, the complainant has indeed accepted the possession only after being fully satisfied about the execution of the obligations by the OP under the MOU and has categorically also positively discharged the OP from all its obligations under the MOU on 19.05.2014. The complainant, though has filed the possession letter, has not attempted in the complaint to assert as to how the complaint can validly be filed despite such positive discharge granted in the possession letter. As a matter of fact, in the past pre-possession email of the complainant, on one hand, reveals "no objection to taking possession" subject to some issues to be addressed by the respondent, which is agreed to and reassured also by the respondent. The OP relied heavily on this possession letter in reply filed on 17.05.2017, from reply to para 3 onwards of the complaint. It is the categorical contention in reply that the OP had completed the requisite work under the MOU and that, there was complete discharge given through the possession letter and that the collaboration agreement as also the MOU both came to an end upon such discharge. In rejoinder, however, the complainant has merely stated such contention to be untenable and frivolous and further that the complaint and grievances survive because "reliance on (possession letter) dated 19.05.2014 is of no consequence as there were material deficiency and breaches on the part of the OP".

8. In light of this, we may now narrate the provisions in and obligations undertaken by the OP in the MOU dated 07.08.2012, which only we consider to be governing the legal relationship of the parties:

                          Clause 5: Completion of the construction within 15 months from the date of sanction of the building plan, subject to force majeure.

Clause 8 : Installation of lift with sharing of proportionate electricity charges. Clause   14: Proportionate common maintenance charges will be paid by all occupants in proportion to the area occupied.

                          Clause 16: Obtaining and supplying of form B1 and B2 and "any other form/permission" to be the responsibility of the builder.

                          Clause 18: Entire construction to be the sole responsibility of the OP. Clause 20: On failure of the OP to complete the building within 15 months of plan sanction, penalty of Rs.5 lakhs per month to be paid to the complainants. Clause 24: The builder not to execute any sale deed of any floor allocated to his share till the time the structure is complete. Also, the builder shall complete the construction as per specification agreed in and attached with the collaboration agreement.

9. Thus, the MOU prescribes less number of obligations in comparison to those in the collaboration agreement. We find the same to be in the ordinary course primarily for the reason that the registered deeds filed by the OP have also been executed on the same date. In light thereof, the payment of rent by the builder for the delay period and the specific obligation of obtaining the completion certificate and paying lumpsum penalty of Rs.25 lakhs as was provided in the collaboration agreement in clauses 15 and 28 are categorically given up. Similarly, the provisions in clause 37 of the collaboration agreement for creating maintenance corpus of Rs.10 lakhs has also been given up. As a matter of fact, even the grievances attempted to be made out in para 8 of the complaint for interest of Rs.3,17,241/- plus Rs.2,41,000/- are not rooted even in any clause of collaboration agreement. Further, the lumpsum penalty of Rs.25 lakhs for not obtaining completion certificate (para 6 of the complaint) and rent of Rs. 1,20,000/- as per para 9 of the complaint and for maintenance corpus fund of Rs.10 lakhs as per para 12 of the complaint are not at all stated to be or found to be rooted in any of the clauses of the MOU dated 08.08.2012 and therefore, in light of the overall circumstances including that of how the complaint has been framed, we hold that the parties jointly and consciously agreed for excluding those obligations of the builder and therefore, as further so evidenced by the unconditional acceptance of possession by way of possession-cum-discharge letter dated 19.05.2014, there remains no merit in the contentions in the complaint with regard to those alleged deficiencies on the part of the OP. We may also mention that before and immediately after taking over of the possession, the complainant has been articulating his concerns/grievances through emails which have been attached with the complaint (page 69 to 86). The pre-possession email dated 08.04.2014 on record mentions that the point of completion certificate is under active consideration of the parties. It is suggested therein by the complainant to find "some solution" to the problem of completion certificate. As a matter of fact, the issue of completion certificate is the only concern mentioned by the complainant in this communication to the builder. In mail dated 20.04.2014, again issue of partition and puja room only are narrated. On 10th May in an elaborate email (page 77), the complainant has for the first time, mentioned the delay of five months in completing of the project and has also mentioned that "when you complete our floors work and pay our dues and hand over our papers, etc., we do not have any objection, whatsoever, in taking possession". The issue of completion certificate is also categorically raised. Then and thereafter, on 19.05.2014, the possession has been taken over and the OP builder has been "finally discharged from all his obligations whatsoever". In the post-possession first mail of 28.05.2014, the complainant has listed as many as 18 grievances/concerns but has refrained from raising any concerns regarding the completion certificate or completion of the project. Accordingly, with regard to the completion certificate, it is an admitted position that the same has not been obtained by the OP builder for which a categorical obligation was accepted in the MOU. The pre-possession mails, however, indicate that though the complainant was aware regarding non-availability of completion certificate, he had categorically shown his willingness in mail dated 10.05.2014 to accept the possession on "payment of some dues" and on completion of floor work and handing over of papers (page 77). The due payments as referred to in the said mail has not been referred to specially by any of the parties in the pleadings. However, the signing of the possession letter and discharge of the OP therein has to be read in light of such past and subsequent mail communications.

10. After careful perusal of the entire material on record, and after considering the totality of the facts, we are of the considered opinion that the possession letter of 19.05.2014 would not in itself be a bar for the complainant to allege deficiency on the basis of other contemporaneous evidence. At the same time, we are also of the view that the MOU dated 08.08.2012 stood substantially complied with by the OP builder and though certain deficiencies as narrated in email dated 28.05.2014 remained, the complainant shall not remain entitled to the compensation for absence of completion certificate or failure of the OP in obtaining the same. The complainant shall similarly not remain entitled for even the admitted and obvious delay in completing the project at the rate mentioned in the MOU in clause 20 for the reasons of likelihood of some "dues" having been paid by the OP before the complainant agreed to discharged the OP builder by signing the possession letter, and in any case, because neither the possession letter nor the subsequent emails from the complainant specifically mention the grievance of delay. The combined reading of mail dated 10.05.2014, possession-cum-discharge letter dated 19.05.2014 and mail dated 28.05.2014 serve as reliable evidence in this behalf. The mail dated 28.05.2014 though mentions that "it is now almost 20 months that we handed over keys...", still it raises no demand for compensation for such delay. The mail dated 05.02.2015 brings out the only unresolved grievance of fitting of bath tub on the first floor, paint polish and lighting of the basement and additionally the completion certificate. Thereafter, the notice dated 07.05.2015 was served which substantially expanded the grievances in comparison to mail dated 05.02.2015. Thus, compensation for alleged delay does not seem to have remained outstanding after the discharge was granted on 19.05.2014 upon the promise of the OP in mail dated 10.05.2014 of "complete service after handing over the project as per your satisfaction", though, delay of five months is obvious. Only some finishing, furnishing and provisioning in the floors in the complainant's allocated portion, however,still remained outstanding.

11. After noting (a) the conscious abandonment of OP's obligation for obtaining the completion certificate in MOU, (b) the contents of the mails dated 10.05.2014 and 28.05.2014 and (c) contents of the execution of the possession letter and mail dated 05.02.2015, we are of the considered opinion that though the possession letter signifies the mutual exchange of considerations between the parties before signing of the letter of possession on 19.05.2014, it does appear that some unspecified deficiencies persisted till 05.08.2015 when the complaint is filed. Moreover, though the OP builder has denied the veracity of the email communications, on 26.06.2014 and on 10.05.2014 there is positive response also from the OP builder to two of the mails. The complainant has also placed certificate under section 65B on record by way of IA/16059/2023 which has been taken on record. Otherwise also, we find nothing concocted or out of ordinary in the communications through email of the complainant. We, therefore, conclude that there is delay of five months in completing the building and in handing over. We also hold that the complainant is evidenced to have been "satisfied" about the services of the OP on 19.05.2014 at the time of taking the possession. However, still, subsequent communications indicate that the complainant was not compensated fully on that date and also that some of the work in the building happened subsequently as is evident from the mails of 04.01.2015 and 05.01.2015 (page 69 and 70). To that extent, the possession letter of 19.05.2014 does not in fact or in law "discharge" the OP from his obligations under the MOU. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to recognize the deficiencies in the services of the OP and to grant an all-inclusive lumpsum compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs for delay in handing over possession and in not delivering hassle-free complete unit even after delay. However, after also recognizing that the complainant has not approached this Commission with full relevant facts and has also, to some extent, unnecessarily twisted the facts in the complaint filed by him, we would direct the OP to pay only 80% of the amount i.e. Rs.8 lakhs along with interest at 6% from 05.08.2015 till the date of payment to the complainant within two months from the date of this order. The non-payment within two months shall entail enhanced rate of interest of 8% for the period 06.03.2026 till the date of payment. The complainant shall also be entitled for costs of Rs. 25000/-. The complaint stands partly allowed.