(1.) The present Consumer Complaint is filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The case of the Complainant in brief is that an Apartment Unit bearing No. T-04-07/02 in the project called as "Golf Avenue" in Sector 106, Gurgaon, Haryana was initially allotted to a person from whom the Complainant had purchased the same. Subsequently, the Opposite Party had acknowledged the Complainant as an allottee and executed a Builder Buyer Agreement on 23.01.2013 with the Complainant. As per Clause 13 of the aid Agreement, the Opposite Party was to hand over possession of the subject flat within 42 months from the date of execution of the agreement. However, till the filing of the complaint the construction of the flat was not completed and no offer of possession was made by the Opposite Party. It is further contended that the Complainant has paid almost 90% of the consideration amount for which he had taken loans and is paying EMI. It is further submitted that the Clauses of Builder Buyer Agreement are one-sided to the detriment to the allottees. It is submitted that while the allottees were made to pay 18% of interest on the delayed payment of the installments, the Opposite Party is claiming delayed compensation @ Rs.10/- per sq. ft. per month which come only approximately 1.5% p.a. It is submitted that the Opposite Party is guilty of deficiency in service. The purpose for which the Complainant had purchased the flat over the period has lost its purpose and Opposite Party should be directed to refund its money along-with interest @ 18% p.a. with compensation etc.
(2.) The claim is contested by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party has taken several preliminary objections including that the Complainant had purchased the flat for the purpose of investment/resale/speculation and that he had inflated his claim with the intention to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission and since he is not the original allottee of the flat but has purchased the flat on the re-sale, he is not covered under the Consumer Protection Act. On merits it is not denied that the Builder Buyer Agreement was executed with the Complainant. It is, however, submitted that the time for delivery of possession was not essence but was tentative and was subject to force majeure events. It is contended that the delay had occurred due to the reasons beyond the control of the Opposite Party. It is also submitted that the project is complete and only interior and finishing work remains to be done. It is further contended that Opposite Party had to stop the construction activities from May, 2015 to August, 2015 due to the letter of Regional Office North Haryana State Pollution Control Board dated 01.05.2015 whereby it was informed that Hon'ble National Green Tribunal vide its order dated 07.04.2015 and 10.04.2015 in Original Application No. 21 of 2014 titled as Vardhman Kaushik Vs. Union of India has taken a serious view of the pollution emanating from construction activities and on 10.11.2017 the office of District town Planner Enforcement again directed the Opposite Party to stop all construction activities. It is submitted that the Complainant was made aware of the matter. It is further submitted that Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority had given time from period 21.02.2019 to 30.06.2021 for completion of the project.
(3.) I have heard the arguments and perused the record.