SUDHA Vs. JAIPRAKASH ASSOCIATES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Complaint has been filed on 20.09.2017.

(2.) The brief facts as alleged in the Complaint are that on 27.01.2013, the Complainant no.3 Sh. Naren Nath Sarvaria booked a unit no.GDI 143304 in Garden Isels project of the Opposite Party and the possession was to be handed over within 42 months, i.e., three and a half year. The Complainant no.3 took a home loan for the said unit on 21.04.2015 and paid EMI of approximately Rs. 35,000/- per month and paid total amount of Rs. 59,48,479.86/- towards the said unit. He also had to pay the late payment of installment @12% p.a. It is alleged that the Complainant No.3 was again duped for the second time by the Opposite Party in June-July 2015. When he had went to the office of the Opposite Party complaining about the delay in construction of the Garden Isels, it was suggested by the Opposite Party that the Complainant no.3 should buy another flat. Thereafter, the flat in the project Imperial Courts was booked by all the Complainants on 12.06.2015. It was a four bedroom flat measuring 3724.68 sq. ft. as covered area with the super area of 3724.68 sq. ft. with four car parking. The cost of one car parking was Rs. 5,00,000/- which was double the cost of the car parking offered in the previous unit. At the time of booking of the flat, a 4% discount on the consolidated final figure of the sale consideration was given to the Complainant. On 11.07.2015 an allotment letter was issued and the Opposite Party promised to hand over the possession within 24 months. It is contended that in the month of October 2015, the Complainant as per the plan and advice of the Opposite Party sought cancellation of the purchased unit in Garden Isels and requested for the transfer of the amount in the account of Imperial Courts flat. In March, 2016 the Opposite Party transferred the said amount in the account of Imperial Courts flat. It is submitted that due to the said transfer, the Complainants have lost home loan monthly EMI of Rs. 35,000/- paid for over 25 months, 5% deduction on cancellation of the unit and the late payment amount of Rs. 2 to 4 Lakhs calculated @ 12% p.a. on the late payment of the installments and this amount comes to approximately Rs. 14 to 16 Lakhs and it is recoverable from the Opposite Party along with compensation for harassment and mental agony.

(3.) On 24.10.2016, the Complainant received a possession letter from the Opposite Party indicating the total sale consideration of Rs. 2,98,13,862.30/-. By 31.12.2016, the Opposite Party had received a sum of Rs. 28,825,436/-. It is submitted that the total consideration amount stood paid to the Opposite Party on 31.12.2016 and as per the possession letter, the flat was to be handed over within 45 days, i.e., by 15th February 2017. However, series of unfortunate and exploitative events took place after the entire consideration amount was paid by the Complainants. It is submitted that the Opposite Party informed the Complainants about the shortage of material and therefore, informed them that it would take a long time for them to install 7 ACs, one Jacuzzi, well-furnished modular kitchen and wardrobes in all four bedrooms. On the advice of the Opposite Party, the Complainants under duress decided to give up all the materials like installation 7 ACs, one Jacuzzi, well-furnished modular kitchen and wardrobes in all four bedrooms and for that purpose, the Opposite Party had given a discount of Rs. 4,72,900/-, while the actual cost of all those articles were more than Rs. 15 Lakhs. The work which was left to be done was final finishing like putting of window panels and glasses, painting/whitewash, bathroom fittings and kitchen fitting, putting granite slabs etc. and bedroom wooden flooring, electricity and pluming. It is submitted that as per the assurance of the Opposite Party, the flooring was to be done with imported marble but it was done with the tiles. It is submitted that the series of e-mails were exchanged between the parties and the Opposite Party had done nothing towards handing over of the possession of the flat. Even after receiving the full consideration amount, on 31.12.2016, the Opposite Party had demanded Rs. 2,80,000/- as interest for the delayed payment since the payment of Rs. 53,94,134/- was done late. It is submitted that this amount was transferred from the account of Garden Isels in the account of Imperial Courts flat. The TDS Certificate was also not issued. The Opposite Party pressurized the Complainants to get the flat registered and therefore, stamp papers of Rs. 13,67,700/- were bought by the Complainants. The Opposite Party had also extorted Rs. 5,17,830/- towards FMD, maintenance, social club subscription for one year. On 02.05.2017, the Opposite Party forced the Complainants to pay total sum of Rs. 2,95,21,460.74/-. It is submitted that the Opposite Party had done nothing to ensure the handing over of the possession of the Imperial Courts flat. It is submitted that the agreement between the parties is biased and contrary to the settled principle of law and public policy, hence, the agreement cannot be implemented in the present form. The Complainants were induced to enter into this agreement which Opposite Party now seeks to enforce. The super area was surreptitiously increased and that the Complainants were surreptitiously charged for four car parking and thus Opposite Party has wrongfully gained a sum of Rs. 41 Lakhs. It is submitted that the super area as shown by the Opposite Party is not the correct super area which can be revealed from the allotment letters issued to the other allottees of the said property which would show that the super area of the flat was 3440 sq. ft. with one car parking. It is further contended that on 06.09.2017, the Complainant No.3 had visited the Imperial Courts flat and had found that the second hand window panels were installed, windows glasses were of some local company and of highly inferior quality, 5mm glasses were installed despite the fact that it is 29th floor and that the workers were putting cut pieces/broken glasses on the window panels. The overall condition of the project was not what was proposed and represented to the Complainants. The staircase was full of filth and some waste material besides having puke and other human waste and due to that, it was not possible to use the staircase. It is submitted that the Opposite Party is forcing the Complainants to take the possession of such flat. It is submitted that in such a situation, taking possession of the flat would not solve the problem because the Opposite Party does not seem to have the intention to deliver what was promised and represented. The agreement, therefore, stands breached and deserves to be cancelled. On these contentions, the following prayers are made: