SHUBRO ROY CHOUDHURY Vs. SARE GURUGRAM PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present complaint is filed for refund of the amount deposited by the Complainant towards the allotment of the residential flat in the project called "The Petioles", which was part of the huge residential Group Housing Project called 'Crescent ParC' in village Wazirpur and Mewka in Residential Sector 92, District Gurugram, Haryana. Unit No. P061601 on the 16th floor was allotted to the Complainant. The Flat Buyer Agreement was executed on 19.02.2013 under which the Opposite Party had promised the possession of the said flat within 36 months from the date of commencement of construction with grace period of six month. The construction had begun before the date of execution of the Flat Buyer Agreement. It is submitted that till the filing of the complaint i.e. on 14.05.2019 the possession of the said flat was not offered to the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant had deposited total sum of Rs.41,34,142/- against the cost of the flat which was 1,00,02,600/-. It is submitted that the Opposite Party had since defaulted in handing over the possession of the flat within the stipulated period, there is deficiency in service on their part. It is submitted that at such a belated stage the Complainant cannot be compelled to take possession which has not yet been offered and nowhere in sight. It is prayed that the Opposite Party be directed to refund the deposited amount along-with interest @ 18% p.a. and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with compensation for mental harassment and anxiety and Rs.1,00,000/- towards litigation costs.

(2.) The Opposite Party filed its written version. The Opposite Party has not disputed the fact that the flat had been allotted to the Complainant and he had paid a sum of Rs. 41,34,142/- towards cost of that flat and that Flat Buyer Agreement was also executed between the parties. It is contended that the Opposite party is entitled for the benefit of force majeure clause as construction could not be completed for the reasons of non-availability of the construction material and non-availability of ground water for construction as the Punjab & Haryana High court vide its order dated 31.07.2012 in CWP No. 20032 of 2008 titled as Sunil Singh Vs. MOEF & Others had directed that ground water shall not be used for the construction purposes. They thus had to stop the construction.

(3.) While the Complainant has filed its affidavit of evidence, the Opposite Party had failed to file any affidavit in support of its contention in the Written Statement and, thus the Opposite Party has not lead any evidence.