While observing this, State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, has directed WTC, Noida, Development Company Pvt. Ltd to refund an amount Rs 31,61,828 along with interest @9 per cent p.a. to a city resident for not delivering the possession of the office space in Mohali project in stipulated time.

The Commission has also directed to pay compensation of Rs 75, 000 for causing mental agony and harassment and Rs 35,000 as cost of litigation, to the complainant, within a period of 30 days.

Parminder Singh Bakshi, a Chandigarh resident, said that he had booked an office space on the 8th Floor in Tower-C having super area measuring 500 sq feet at WTC Chandigarh Aero city, Mohali, in 2016 for a total price of Rs 33,69,680, out of which he had paid Rs 31,61,828. He had booked the unit for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment as retirement plan. The builder executed a Developer-Buyer Agreement dated April 27, 2016,

The possession of the unit was to be offered within a period of 48 months from the date of execution of the agreement plus additional grace period of six months.

After payment of substantial amount, he kept visiting the Mohali office site, but neither the possession was given nor the money refunded. After hearing of arguments, the commission said that the builder not only failed to deliver the possession of the unit within 54 months by October 27, 2020, as per Clause 4.5 of the Agreement but also failed to refund the amount, which is now with GMADA.

The Opposite Parties (builder and GAMADA) have deprived the complainant of the value of his investment and have caused prolonged mental and financial harassment.

The commission also came down heavily on the clause of contract which provides that in the event of any default on the part of the allottee in making timely payment of instalments, the allottee shall be liable to pay penal interest @18 per cent per annum on the defaulted amount for the period of delay. However, in stark contrast, the clauses are conspicuously silent with

regard to any corresponding liability of the developer in the event of its own default, in as much as no provision has been made for the payment of compensation or interest to the allottee in case of delay in construction or failure to deliver possession within the stipulated period.

Such a contractual arrangement, which imposes a stringent and onerous financial liability upon one party, while completely insulating the other party from any reciprocal obligation, is manifestly inequitable and cannot withstand judicial scrutiny. The absence of mutuality and reciprocity in the contractual terms renders the clauses oppressive and unconscionable, particularly in the context of standard form agreements where the allottee has little or no bargaining power and is compelled to accept the terms as dictated by the developer.