NIKHIL BEHL Vs. SUPERTECH LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Consumer Complaint has been filed under Sec. 21 read with Sec. 22 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act ") by the Complainants, Shri Nikhil Behl and his wife, Ms. Malvika, through their Power of Attorney Holder, Mr. Prem Behl against Opposite Party, namely, Supertech Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Developer ") seeking refund of the amount paid by them to the Developer towards purchase of the Flat along with interest and compensation as the Developer has failed to hand over the possession of the allotted Flat in terms of Agreement executed between the parties.

(2.) The facts as narrated in the Complaint are that the Complainants had booked a Flat in the Residential Complex, known as "Supertech Czar Suites " proposed to be developed by the Opposite Party Developer at Greater Noida, by paying a booking amount of ?2 lakh on 10/7/2007. Vide Allotment Letter, dtd. 17/7/2007, the Complainants were allotted Flat No. Orchid/1304/12th Floor in Supertech Czar Suites, Greater Noida admeasuring approximately 2490 sq. ft for a total Sale Consideration of ?74,96,350/- (Rupees Seventy Four Lakh Ninety Six Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty only) including Basic Price of ?67,85,250/-, one time charges for Car Parking, one time Lease, interest free Maintenance Security, electricity installation charges and Club Membership. The balance Sale Consideration was to be paid in terms of Time Linked Payment Plan. It is averred that at the time of booking of the Flat, the Developer promised to the Complainants to hand over the possession of the allotted Flat within 20 months i.e. by May 2009. According to the Complainants, they had made a payment of ?73,90,500/-, including ?1,00,000/- to Shrishti Welfare Society till March 2009, however, the Opposite Party Developer has miserably failed to keep its words of timely delivery of the possession of the Flat to them despite having received such a hefty amount. On having followed the matter with the Developer, Vide Letter dtd. 15/9/2009, the Complainants were informed by the Opposite Party Developer that the possession of the Flat would be handed over by December, 2009 but the ultimate result was only an embarrassment to the Complainants. It is further alleged by the Complainants that the Developer without obtaining their written consent unilaterally changed the tower and location of the Flat originally offered to them. Consequently, the Complainants served a legal notice upon the Opposite Party Developer on 2/1/2012 calling upon them to inform the exact status of the Project within a period of two weeks, however, the Opposite Party Developer did not respond to the legal notice. A reminder dtd. 7/8/2012 was sent through Registered Post to the Developer in response to which vide e-mail dtd. 25/8/2012, the Complainants were informed that the contents of the legal notice dtd. 7/8/2012 were vague and unclear and, therefore, did not deserve reply from them. Complainants again sent a legal notice dtd. 8/10/2012 to the Developer but the same was not replied.

(3.) On 4/2/2016, the representative of the Complainants visited to the office of the Developer to enquire about the exact status of construction and date of handing over the possession of Flat. He was informed that the possession would be handed over latest by end of the February, 2016, however, no possession was offered even by the said date.