DR. MRIDULA RAJBANSHI Vs. UMANG REALTECH (P) LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Consumer Complaint has been filed by Dr. (Mrs.) Mridula Rajbanshi and Ms. Suvriti Rajbanshi (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Complainants") under Sec. 21 (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against UMANG Realtech Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Opposite Party/Builder Co.") for failure to hand over possession of their booked apartment by the stipulated date as agreed in the Apartment Buyers' Agreement.

(2.) Brief facts are that on 25/3/2006, the Complainants had booked a 3-BHK residential apartment admeasuring approximately 1653 sq. ft. with UMANG Realtech Pvt. Ltd. (Opposite Party) in its upcoming residential complex 'WINTER HILLS DWARKA, New Delhi'. The total sale consideration for the said apartment was Rs.91,50,218.00. However, the total basic sale price of Rs.79,44,316.00 was mentioned in the Apartment Buyers' Agreement executed on 28/6/2012 between the parties. The additional charges applicable were not included. As per Clause 8.1 of the said Agreement, the Opposite Party promised to deliver the possession of the residential apartment to the Complainants by 31/3/2014 plus grace period of 6 months, from the date of execution of the Agreement. The Complainants made payments on several occasions to the Opposite Party as agreed and paid a total amount of Rs.90,97,515.00 by 10/7/2014. Vide letter dtd. 28/10/2017, the Opposite Party requested the Complainants for payment of certain alleged dues in the form of holding charges, interest and other charges without enclosing any Account Statement or Ledger Accounts in that regard. It was alleged that despite repeated requests by the Complainants vide letters dtd. 3/11/2017 and 22/3/2018 to the Opposite Party, no details of the Account Statement for calculating the outstanding dues were provided. The Complainants came to know that the alleged outstanding dues of Rs.5,27,530.00 and Rs.6,59,133.00 were imposed without any basis after the lapse of due date for delivery of possession. However, vide letters dtd. 20/3/2018, 27/4/2018 and 24/5/2018, the Opposite Party arbitrarily raised demand for additional payments from the Complainants. It is alleged by the Complainants that despite payment of substantial amount as agreed between the Parties, the Opposite Party failed to deliver the possession of the Apartment within the stipulated period which resulted in extreme mental distress, pain and agony to the Complainants as they had to live in rented premises. Being aggrieved, the Complainants filed the present Consumer Complaint alleging Unfair Trade Practice and Deficiency in Service by the Opposite Party and prayed for directions to the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.2,61,09,587.47 along with pendente lite and future interest @ 18% p.a.

(3.) The Opposite Party, in its Written Version, submitted that the Occupancy Certificate of the project was obtained on 16/10/2017 and subsequent thereto possession was offered to the Complainants vide final Demand Letter dtd. 28/10/2017. The delay in handing over possession was due to the challenges faced by the real estate industry which was beyond the control of the Opposite Party. As per Clause 8.1 and 8.2 of the Apartment Buyers' Agreement, the Builder Co. was entitled to reasonable extension of time. It was further submitted that the Opposite Party sent various reminders to the Complainants for payment of outstanding dues, but the Complainants failed to make timely payment and therefore, they were also liable to pay interest of Rs.31,316.00as per the terms and conditions of Apartment Buyers' Agreement. The relief sought by the Complainants was highly exaggerated and the rate of interest of 18% was contrary to Clause 8.6 of the Apartment Buyers' Agreement.