KAMAL MALHOTRA Vs. PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Consumer Complaint has been filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") by Kamal Malhotra (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) against Opposite Party, M/s. Parsvnath Developers Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Developer), seeking refund of the amount paid towards purchase of Flat alongwith interest and costs as the Opposite Party Developer failed to hand-over the possession of the Flat booked by them in the Project launched by the Developer in the name and style of "Parsvnath Privilege" located at Plot No. 11, Section Pi, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh.

(2.) It has been averred in the Complaint that the Opposite Party Developer launched a Residential Group Housing Project in the name and style of 'Parsvnath Privilege' located at Plot No. 11, Sector Pi (Chorosia Estate), Greater Noida, UP.The Complainant booked a residential flat for his personal use in the said Project in the year 2006.Flat No. T7-1401, Tower No. 7 having an super area 1855 sq. ft. was allotted to the Complainant at a basic sale price of Rs. 56,83,256/-.Flat Buyers Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the Agreement) was executed between the Parties on 26.06.2007.As per Clause 10(a) of the Agreement, the construction of the said flat was to be completed within 36 months from the date of commencement of construction of a particular block in which flat is located. Vide letter dated 10.06.2010, the Opposite Party Developer informed the Complainant about Re-Scheduling of Construction Plan and assured that the Project would be completed by March 2012.In the year 2012, the Developer offered the Complainant to switch its allotted flat, i.e., Flat No. 1401 in Tower T7 to Flat No. 1401 in Tower 17, which the Complainant accepted in the hope of getting the flat sooner.However, the pace of construction in Tower 17 was also very slow and in similar situation as that of the earlier tower where the Complainant had originally booked his Flat.The Complainant had opted for Construction Linked Payment Plan and had deposited Rs. 50,23,484/- on different dates between the year 2006 and 2015 as per demand of the Opposite Party Developer.Despite that the Opposite Party Developer miserably failed to deliver the possession of the Flat within stipulated period.It is averred by the Complainant that the construction at the site remained at a standstill till the date of filing of the Complaint even after almost 7 years from the date of booking of the Flat. The Project is still incomplete and the Developer has even not received the Occupancy Certificate.He has no trust on the Opposite Party Developer and is no longer interested in having possession of the Flat.It was also averred in the Complaint that he has suffered loss of opportunity as the prices of the Flats have increased many times since the year 2007 and the Developer is indulged in unfair trade practice by offering merely Rs. 5/- per sq. ft. per month as penalty for delay in handing over possession to the Complainant while they are charging 24% interest for delayed payments from the Complainant.Alleging deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the Opposite Party Developer, the Complainant has filed the present Consumer Complaint with the following prayer:

(3.) The Complaint was resisted by the Opposite Party Developer by filing its Written Statement in which the Opposite Party Developer took preliminary objection that the Complainant has invested money for his economic purpose and is, therefore, not a Consumer under section 2(1)(d) of the Act. It was stated that a Flat Buyer Agreement was executed between the Complainant and the Developer and they are bound by the terms of the Agreement.It was further stated that the delay in construction of Project is caused due to global recession in the real estate sector and this was duly informed to the Complainant vide letter 10.06.2010.The Project is under way and is not abandoned by the Developer.The delay in construction is due to the reasons which were beyond the control of the Developer, therefore, there is no Deficiency in Service or Unfair Trade Practice on their part.They prayed that the Consumer Complaint be dismissed.