National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Mohit Seth & Anr. vs Sunworld Residency Pvt. Ltd. on 22 October, 2021
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI CONSUMER CASE NO. 375 OF 2018 1. MOHIT SETH & ANR. R/o P 28, SECTOR-12, GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR, NOIDA - 201301 Uttar Pradesh ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. SUNWORLD RESIDENCY PVT. LTD. Rep. by The Chairmen & Managing Director Corporate Office: GH-1C, Sector 168 NOIDA EXPRESSWAY, 2. HDFC LTD. Rep. By Branch Head Core 6A, 5th Floor, India Habitat Centre, Lodi Road, New Delhi-110003 ...........Opp.Party(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. SUBHASH CHANDRA,MEMBER
For the Complainant : Ms. Devahuti Tamuli, Advocate For the Opp.Party : For Opposite party No.1 Mr. Anshum Jain, Advocate
For Opposite Party No.2 :Mr. Sachin Datta, Senior Advocate
with Ms. Amrita Singh, Advocate
Dated : 22 Oct 2021 ORDER
JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA, PRESIDING MEMBER
1.The case of the complainants in brief is that they were aspiring of owning a house of their own and impressed by the advertisement claim of Opposite Party No.1 / Builder, they had booked a flat for themselves. They were also informed by opposite party no.1 during interaction that opposite party no.2, HDFC, has approved the said housing project and was offering loans to the prospective home buyers. Impressed by the impressive promise made by the opposite parties, the complainants booked a flat in the housing project, called, 'Sunworld Arista' located at Sector 168, Plot No.GH-lC, Noida Expressway, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. The total consideration price of the said flat was Rs.1,36,76,375/-. The complainants entered into a Builder Buyer Agreement with opposite party no.1 who was the builder on 20.02.2015 and paid a sum of Rs.11,43,381/- towards the booking amount. Thereafter, they were allotted apartment no. T-1/1502 on 15th floor of Tower-1. On 21.02.2015, a supplementary agreement was also entered into with the opposite party no.1. Under this supplementary agreement, the complainants were given an option to cancel the allotment of the apartment on expiry of 24 months from the date of disbursement of the bank loan amount by a notice to be served 30 days prior to the date of expiry of 24 months. As per clause 6 of the said supplementary agreement, the opposite party no.1 had undertaken to pay the Pre -EMIs to opposite party no.2. Also, under clause 7 and 9 of the said supplementary agreement, the opposite party no.1 had undertaken to pay the entire loan advance plus taxes, if any, to opposite party no.2 in case the complainants opt to cancel the allotment in terms of supplementary agreement and in that eventuality, the opposite party no.1 had promised to return the entire booking amount of Rs.11,43,381/- alongwith interest @ 10% amounting to Rs.7,71,750/-, totaling to Rs.19,15,131/- On the same day i.e. 21.02.2015, a Tripartite Agreement between the complainants, opposite party no.1 and opposite party no.2 was also entered into whereby opposite party no.2 had agreed to provide a loan of Rs.1,02,00,000/-. It is contended by the complainants that as per clause 8 of Tripartite Agreement, in case of cancellation of allotment for any reason whatsoever, it was incumbent upon the opposite party no.1 to refund the entire loan amount to opposite party no.2. The entire loan amount was disbursed in the month of February, 2015. The opposite party no.1, however, had failed to complete the construction of the said property within the stipulated period and even after expiry of 22 months from the disbursal of the loan, the project was nowhere near completion. Exercising its right under the supplementary agreement, the complainants wrote a letter dated 14.12.2016 to opposite party no.1 whereby the allotment / booking of the apartment was cancelled. Opposite party no.2 duly was informed of the cancellation of the allotment / booking of the said flat. The complainants also demanded refund of the advance payment made alongwith interest as promised by opposite party no.1. The opposite party no.1 replied it vide email dated 15.12.2016 and requested for an extension of 12 months for giving the possession and promised that the additional burden on account of EMIs to opposite party no.2 would be borne by it. The complainants vide their email dated 16.12.2016 refused to accede to this request of opposite party no.1 and again asked for the refund of the promised amount. No reply, however, was received from opposite party no.1 and, thereafter, a reminder email on 20.12.2016 was also sent. Thereafter, again an email dated 22.01.2017 was sent whereby attention of opposite party no.1 was brought to clause 7 of supplementary agreement. The complainants received a letter dated 24.01.2017 from opposite party no.1 wherein opposite party no.1 had stated that it would continue to pay EMIs to opposite party no.2. It is submitted that despite the fact that complainants had already cancelled allotment / booking and had asked for complete refund of the amount paid to them, opposite party no.2 did not make any effort to recover the loan amount from opposite party no.1. From February 2017 to August 2017, opposite party no.1 paid certain amounts to opposite party no.2 in the loan account of the complainants, which was duly accepted by opposite party no.2. The complainants, however, learnt that opposite party no.2 had deducted an amount of Rs.93,526/- from the account of the complainants towards payment of EMI. It was contended by the complainants that the said act on the part of opposite party no.2 is an illegal act. Letter dated 20.09.2017 was again sent to opposite party no.2 apprising them that the liability to pay the EMI now rests upon the opposite party no.1 and that they had to recover the loan amount from opposite party no.1. However, opposite party no.2 made an illegal attempt to deduct an amount of Rs.93,526/- also in the month of October 2017. Subsequent letters to opposite party no.2 were also not heeded by opposite party no.2 and they continued threatening the complainants for recovery of the EMIs. It is submitted that in the month of October vide email dated 30.10.2017, the complainants were forced to agree to pay the EMI charged on the interest component under the threat that on non-payment, they would be treated as defaulters. It is submitted that opposite party no.2 had started threatening recovery of the amount from the complainants when infact they should recover it from opposite party no.1. A legal notice dated 21.11.2017 was sent to the opposite parties. On these contentions, the following prayers are made:
"a. Pass an order allowing the Complaint and to direct the opposite party no.1 to immediately refund an amount of Rs.19,15,131/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Fifteen Thousand One Hundred and Thirty One Only) along with interest thereon calculated @18% from 01.03.2017 till the date of payment;
b. Pass an order calling upon the opposite party no.2 to immediately and forthwith close the loan account in the name of the complainants with effect from 01.03.2017 and also to ensure that the complainants are in not in the list of defaulters or their credit rating affected in any adverse manner whatsoever under the instant transactions between the parties;
c. Pass an order calling upon the opposite party no.2 to immediately refund the complainants an amount of Rs.93,526/- that has been illegally appropriated from the bank account of the complainants along with interest thereon calculated at the prevailing bank interest rate from the date of the appropriation till the date of repayment;
d. Pass an order directing the opposite party no.1 to forthwith refund the loan amount of Rs. 1,02,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Two Lakhs) to opposite party no.2 along with interest thereon calculated at the prevailing bank interest rate from the date of the appropriation till the date of repayment;
e. Pass and order calling upon both the opposite parties to jointly pay the complainants an amount of Rs,10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) along with interest thereon calculated from the date of the legal notice dated 21.11.2017 till the date of actual payment as compensation for the mental harassment, trauma and agony the complainants have undergone at the hands of the opposite parties;
f. Pass any such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."
2. Claim is contested by both the opposite parties. The execution of Builder Buyer Agreement, supplementary agreement and Tripartite Agreement is not disputed by opposite party no.1. Opposite party no.1 has also not disputed of having received a letter dated 14.12.2016 for cancellation of allotment from the complainants. The opposite party no.1, however, has raised several preliminary objections. It is contended that complainants are not the consumers since they had booked an apartment for earning profit and for investment purposes. They have entered into the agreement as they saw the opportunity to make profit from the provisions incorporated in the supplementary agreement dated 21.02.2015. The fact that they have exercised their right under supplementary agreement shows that complainants were never interested in the possession of the apartment but were interested in the additional profit under supplementary agreement. It is submitted that this fact stands reiterated by several emails and the letters received from the complainants whereby they had requested for refund of amount in terms of the supplementary agreement. Reliance has been placed on the findings in cases Morion Chemicals Ltd. Vs. UCO Bank and Anr. of Punjab and Haryana High Court, PDC Marketing Private Ltd. Vs. Axis Bank Ltd., Ved Kumari and Ashish Kaul V/s Omaxe Buildhome Pvt.Ltd., both passed by National Commission and Birla Technologies Limited V. Neutral Glass & Allied Industries Limited IX (2010) SLT 396 : 1 ( 2011) CPJ 1 (SC) : (2011) 1 SCC 525 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
3. It is submitted that since this Commission has no power to cross examine the witnesses, the matter cannot be disposed of summarily. It is further submitted that there is no deficiency in service. It is submitted that Builder Buyer Agreement squarely stipulates the liability of the parties in the event of delay in completion of construction and in case of delay, the opposite party is liable to pay delay charges to the complainant @ Rs. 5/- per square feet of super area per month till date of notice of possession as per clause 28 of the said agreement. It is submitted that parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement and reliance has been placed in the matter of Sahara India Vs. C Madhubabu, II ( 2011) CPJ 3 and Sahara India Vs. P. Gajendrachari III ( 2010) CPJ 190 passed by National Commission, Bharati Knitting Co. Vs. DHL Worldwide Courier (1996) 4 SCC 704, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna and Ors. Vs. Green Rubber Industries and Ors. AIR (1990) SC 699, both passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is further submitted that opposite party no.1 is registered in Real Estate Developers / Builder under the provisions of RERA, 2016 wherein completion date of the project in question has been registered as 31.12.2018. It is further submitted that Section 79 of the RERA Act, 2016 excludes the jurisdiction of Civil Courts. It is submitted that delay had occurred due to reasons beyond the control of the opposite party no.1 such as stay by NGT, stay against the use of ground water for construction work, strike of building material suppliers and paucity of labour due to demonetization. On these contentions, it is submitted that present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. Opposite Party No.2 has also filed its written statement. It is submitted that complainants had applied for loan vide their application form dated 08.01.2015 and a loan of sum of Rs.1,02,00,000/- was approved and it was conveyed to the complainants vide letter dated 30.01.2015. Subsequently, a home loan agreement dated 18.03.2015 was entered into between the complainants and opposite party no.2. A Tripartite Agreement dated 21.02.2015 was also executed between the complainant, opposite party no.2 and opposite party no.1. Under this agreement, the complainants had mortgaged all their rights, titles, benefit in the subject property in favour of opposite party no.2 and opposite party no.1 had issued permission to mortgage the subject property in favour of opposite party no.2. It is submitted that from this document, it is apparent that purchase and retention of the said property by the complainants was the very foundation for the sanction and grant of loan by opposite party no.2. It is submitted that they have now learnt that complainants were mere investors in the project developed by opposite party no.1 and they had obtained loan from opposite party no.2 on false representation and assurances. They have now been informed that complainants had entered into supplementary agreement dated 21.02.2015 with opposite party no.1. It is submitted that it was executed on the back of opposite party no.2 and opposite party no.2 was kept in dark. It is submitted that said supplementary agreement was entirely contradictory to the loan agreement and Tripartite Agreement. It is submitted that opposite party no.2 has filed a criminal complaint dated 19.07.2018 against the complainants as they had acted fraudulently and with malafide intentions. On these contentions, it is submitted that under the loan agreement and Tripartite Agreement, it is the complainants who are liable to repay the loan alongwih interest and, therefore, it cannot be said that demand of repayment of loan amounts to deficiency in service.
5. The parties led their evidences. The parties have also filed their written submissions alongwith case laws.
6. We have heard the arguments and have perused the relevant record. The admitted facts of the case are that complainants were allotted flat No. T-1/1502 on 15th floor of Tower-1 for total consideration of Rs.1,36,76,375/- in the project 'Sunworld Arista' which was under construction and the opposite party no.1 had promised to complete the construction and hand over the flat by December 2016 with six months grace period. It is also an admitted fact that subsequent to the Builder Buyer Agreement, a supplementary agreement dated 21.02.2015 in addition of the Builder Buyer Agreement dated 20.02.2015 was also executed between the parties. Certain relevant terms and conditions of said supplementary agreement are reproduced as under :
Clause 2 of the Supplementary Agreement reads as under:
"2. The Allottee hereby agrees to invest under the present housing loan scheme by way of purchase of above mentioned Apartment with an option to cancel on completion of 24 months from the date of disbursement of Bank Loan Amount. (Bank Loan Amount herein is referred to as the amount disbursed by the concerned Bank to the Developer on behalf of Allottee)"
From this clause, it is apparent that allottee was given an option by opposite party no.1 to cancel the allotment on completion of 24 months from the date of disbursement of Bank Loan amount.
Clause 6 of the Supplementary Agreement reads as under:
"6. It is agreed between the parties that the Allottee shall not be liable to pay PRE-EMl interest on Bank Loan amount to the concerned bank for a period of 24 months from the date of disbursement of Bank Loan Amount. Nevertheless, the Developer undertakes to pay the entire PRE-EMI interest on the "Bank Loan Amount" directly to the concerned Bank on behalf of the Allottee for a period of 24 months from the date of first disbursement of "Bank Loan Amount". On completion of 24 months, the Developer shall not be liable to pay any PRE-EMI interest to the concerned Bank and the Allottee shall be solely liable to pay all EMIs etc. directly to the concerned Bank as per terms and conditions of Loan Agreement."
Vide this clause, it is agreed between the complainants and opposite party no.1 that it will be opposite party no.1 who shall pay the PRE-EMI interest on bank loan to the concerned bank for period of 24 months from the date of disbursement of the bank loan amount directly to the concerned bank on behalf of the allottee.
Clause 7 of the Supplementary Agreement reads as under:
"7. It is hereby agreed by the Allottee that subsequent to the execution of the present agreement, the Allottee cannot create any third party interest or transfer or withdraw or terminate the Builder, Buyer Agreement dated 20"' February, 2015 and the present supplementary agreement for 24 months from the date of first disbursement 'of "Bank Loan Amount" and the said period shall be termed as a "Lock-in period". It is, however, agreed between both the parties that the Allottee has an option to cancel its booking after completion of said lock-in period i.e. on the completion of 24 months from the date of bank loan disbursement. In case the Allottee opts to cancel his/her apartment on the completion of 24 months by sending intimation as per Clause 9 of the present agreement, the Developer shall refund the entire booking amount of Rs. 1143381.00 (i.e. 10% of the Basic Sale Price Including service tax paid by the Allottee) with an additional amount of Rs. 771750.00 totaling to Rs. 1915131.00 within a period of 30 days after completion of 24 months. In case there is a delay of above mentioned payment to Allottee beyond 30 days, the Developer shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the abovementioned amount for the delay period till the date of payment. "
From this clause it is apparent that 24 months which have been mentioned in clause 6 shall be considered as lock-in period and if allottee opts to cancel his / her apartment on completion of 24 months by sending intimation as per clause 9 of this agreement, the developer shall refund the entire booking amount of Rs.11,43,381/- with an additional amount of Rs.7,71,750/- totaling to Rs.19,15,131/- within a period of 30 days and in case of delay of above mentioned payment to allottee beyond 30 days, the liability of the developer shall be to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on the said amount for the delay period till the date of payment.
Clause 9 of the Supplementary Agreement reads as under:
"9. It is agreed by the Allottee that in .order to exercise its option of cancellation of the Apartment on completion of 24 months, the Allottee shall give a written intimation to the Developer 30 days prior to the completion of 24 months. However, in case the Allottee fails to give written intimation to the Developer 30 days prior to the expiry of 24 months, the Allottee shall be deemed to retain the Apartment. In case the Allottee opts for the option of cancellation, the Developer shall settle the loan Account of concerned Bank including service tax for the said Apartment by making the payment of Bank Loan amount due on the date."
The above clause provides the procedure for exercise of the option of cancellation of the agreement on completion of 24 months. It requires the allottee to give in writing to the developer 30 days prior to the completion of 24 months.
7. Admittedly, the loan was disbursed by bank / opposite party no.2 and as per the loan agreement, loan money was released directly in favour of opposite party no.1. 24 months from the date of disbursement of loan amount ends in first week of February 2017. It is also not in dispute that by that time, the construction of the project was not complete. It is also an admitted fact that in terms of clause 7 & 9 of the supplementary agreement, the complainants had exercised their option to opt out of the allotment and had even before the expiry of 30 days from the date of release of loan to opposite party no.1 wrote a letter dated 14.12.2016 which had been duly received by opposite party no.1 and by which they had demanded payment of Rs.19,15,131/- as per clause 7 from opposite party no.1. It is also an admitted fact that opposite party no.1 had requested the complainants not to opt for refund as per clause 7 of supplementary agreement and also offered certain additional benefits like continuation of payment of EMI etc but complainants insisted upon the compliance of clause 7. Meanwhile, opposite party no.2 had started recourse to the recovery of the loan amount from the complainants under the loan agreement and being aggrieved, the present complaint has been filed.
8. From the above, it is apparent that opposite party no.1 is liable to pay the said amount of Rs.11,43,381/- plus Rs.7,71,750/- ( additional amount) as per clause 7 of the supplementary agreement alongwith interest @ 18%.
9. The opposite parties have also argued that complainants are not the consumers since they had invested the money and had no intention to buy the said residential flat and have relied on the judgments of Morion Chemicals Ltd., Ved Kumari and Ashish Kaul and Birla Technologies Limited (supra). No evidence has been produced by the opposite parties to prove that complainants had booked the flat for investment purposes. There is no evidence that complainants have been dealing with sale and purchase of the house. Learned counsels have argued that the conduct of the complainants to opt for the cancellation of the allotment and claiming the booking amount in terms of clause 7 and 9 of the supplementary agreement itself shows that they are the speculators. This argument of the learned counsels have no merit. It is apparent that Builder Buyer Agreement was executed on 20.02.2015 and the supplementary agreement was executed on subsequent date i.e. 21.02.2015. They had paid the booking amount at the time of execution of Builder Buyer Agreement and on that day, subsequent agreement was not in existence. It, therefore, cannot be presumed that complainants had booked the flat with the object of earning the profit. It was only on the next date that opposite party no.1 had entered into the supplementary agreement whereby they had made certain promises to the complainants. Therefore, it cannot be said that amount of Rs.11,43,381/- which was paid as a booking amount of the flat was invested with the sole intention to speculate on it. The intention of the complainants that they were interested in the possession of the flat is also clear from the fact that they had entered into home loan agreement and Tripartite Agreement for home loan with opposite party no.2. Default lies on the part of opposite party no.1 who had failed to keep its promise to give the possession of flat within the stipulated period and continued asking for more time for completion of the project and hand over of the possession. It was only in the year 2019 that an offer of possession was made to the complainants. This fact clearly shows that complainants had not invested money for any commercial gain. They were given an option at the end of 24 months from the date of disbursement of the loan which they had exercised when they found that completion of project was nowhere in sight.
10. The Opposite Party no.1 in support of the contentions that the complainants are not the consumers, has relied on the case of Morion Chemicals Ltd. ( supra) of Punjab and Haryana High Court. The findings in the case are not applicable because those findings were given by Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal in the matter alien to the facts of this case. The findings in the case of PDC Marketing Private Ltd ( supra) are also entirely different. In that case, the ATM card which was issued to the complainant had been used by the complainant for commercial purposes. The facts before us are entirely different. Therefore, the findings are of no help to the opposite parties. The findings in Ved Kumari case ( supra) are also given on a different sets of facts. Therein the complainants had booked four flats and on those facts, this Commission had held that complainants were not the consumers as they had purchased the flats for investment / commercial purposes. However, the facts of the case in hand are entirely different. Similarly findings in the case of Birla Technologies Limited ( supra) are also not applicable since the findings are given in an entirely different sets of facts. The judgments relied upon by the opposite parties on this count are of no help to them.
11. We concur with the findings of the National Commission in Sahara India ( supra). In Sahara India ( supra) this Commission has given the principle that parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement. We also concur with the findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharati Knitting Co. ( supra) and Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna and Ors. ( supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the general principles that the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the contract. Following the principle of Hon'ble Supreme Court as laid down in the cases ( supra ), this Commission is also of the view that terms and conditions of the contract bind the parties and therefore, the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the supplementary agreement dated 21.02.2015.
12. Opposite party no.2 has contended that in terms of clause 5.1 (b), 5.1 (i), 5.4 (a), 5.4 (b) and 5.4 ( c) of the Loan agreement, the complainants could not have disposed of or surrendered the property during the subsistence of the loan without the prior consent of opposite party no.2 and, therefore, opposite party no.2 is liable to recover the loan amount from the complainants. The complainants have duly proved on record that when they had exercised their rights under clauses 7 and 9 of the supplementary agreement dated 21.02.2015, they had duly informed the opposite party no.2 about this and asked them to recover the loan amount from opposite party no.1. The argument of the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 that under the loan agreement, the sole liability of repayment of the loan amount is of the complainants, has no merit in terms of clauses of the Tripartite Agreement entered into between the complainants and opposite party no.1-builder and opposite party no.2 bank. The relevant clause 3 is reproduced as under:
"3. The housing loan advanced to the borrower by HDFC shall be repayable by the borrower by way of Equated Monthly Instalments (EMI). The date of commencement of EMI shall be the first day of the month following the month in which the disbursement of the loan will have been completed and consequently the due date of payment of first EMI shall in such a case be the last day of the said following month. Till the commencement of EMI the borrower shall pay Pre-EMI, which is the simple interest on the loan amount disbursed calculated at the rate of interest as mentioned in the respective loan agreement of the Borrower.
The Borrower has informed HDFC of the scheme of arrangement between the Borrower and the Builder in terms whereof the Builder hereby assumes the liability of payments under the loan agreement as payable by the Borrower to HDFC for 23 months from date of first disbursement plus fractional period of month of first disbursement ( the period be referred to as the "Liability Period" and the Liability be referred to as "Assumed Liability"). It is however agreed that during the liability period the repayment liability is joint and several by and between the Borrower and the Builder. The assumption of liability by the Builder in no manner whatsoever releases, relinquishes and / or reduces the liability of the Borrower and that same shall not be affected in any manner on account of any difference and / or dispute between the Borrower and the Builder under the arrangement between them."
(emphasis mine) Clause 8 of the Tripartite Agreement stipulates about certain eventualities and the liabilities of repayment of loan, which reads as under:
"8. That if the Borrower fails to pay the balance amount representing the difference between the loan sanctioned by HDFC and the actual purchase price of the flat/residential apartment, or, in the event of death of the Borrower or in the event of cancellation of the residential apartment for any reason whatsoever the entire-amount advanced by HDFC will be refunded by the Builder to HDFC forthwith. The Borrower hereby subrogates all his rights for refund with respect to the said residential apartment in favour of HDFC."
(emphasis mine)
13. From the terms of clause 8 of the Tripartite Agreement, it has been agreed between the parties that in the event of cancellation of the residential apartment for any reason whatsoever, the loan amount will be refunded by the builder to the bank. The complainants vide their letter dated 14.12.2016 exercising the rights given to them by the builder under supplementary agreement dated 21.02.2015, opted for the cancellation of allotment and asked for the refund of the booking amount and had also duly informed the bank-opposite party no.2. Accordingly, in terms of clause 8 of the Tripartite Agreement dated 21.02.2015, the liability to refund the loan amount which was disbursed to opposite party no.1 is that of opposite party no.1 - builder. The complainants, therefore, had no liability in terms of Tripartite Agreement to pay the loan amount on cancellation.
14. During the proceedings of this case before this Commission, certain developments had taken place. The ordersheet dated 10.05.2021 is reproduced as under:
"During the course of arguments, it is submitted by Mr. Sachin Datta, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 that the subject flat is ready for possession and the Opposite Party No.2 is ready to take possession of the said flat for recovery of the balance loan amount etc. in case the Opposite Party No.1 and the Complainants have no objection to that.
xxx xxx xxx."
15. Subsequently, certain facts were incorporated in the order sheet dated 11.05.2021, which is also reproduced as under:
"Mr. Shiv Gupta, learned Counsel for the Complainants on instructions from the Complainant No.1, who is also present in person on video conferencing submits that the Complainants are not interested in taking the possession of the subject flat and the Bank which has the lien on the subject flat in terms of the tripartite agreement and the loan agreement can take appropriate action qua the subject flat.
Mr. Anshum Jain, learned Counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.1 on instructions does not deny the fact that there is a lien of the Opposite Party No.2 Bank in the subject flat. He submits that the flat is ready for possession and he has no objection if the Bank wants to take any action for recovery of the loan amount against the liened property.
In view of these submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Opposite Party no.2 the Bank in exercise of legal remedies available to them under the law can take action for reimbursement of the loan amount.
xxx xxx xxx."
16. In view of the above discussion, the present Consumer Complaint is allowed with following directions:
1. The Opposite Party No.1 / Builder is directed to refund a sum of Rs.11,43,381/- and Rs.7,71,750/- to the complainants.
2. The Opposite Party No.1 / Builder is also directed to pay interest @ 18% per annum in terms of clause 7 of the Supplementary Agreement on sum of Rs.11,43,381/- w.e.f. April 2017 till the date of payment.
With these observations, the Consumer Complaint stands disposed of.
......................J DEEPA SHARMA PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... SUBHASH CHANDRA MEMBER