RAMESH THANGARAJAN Vs. SYLVANUS BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The bunch of present Consumer Complaints has been filed under Sec. 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act) by the Complainants/Purchasers of the Villas under the name and style "Pacifica Aurm " proposed to be developed at Pacific Aurum Pandur, OMR Road, Chennai, Tamil Nadu (hereinafter to be referred as the Villa), by Sylvanus Builders and Developers Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the Opposite Party Builder), interalia, alleging deficiency in service in not handing over the possession of the Villa within stipulated period and seeking either possession with delayed compensation or refund of amount deposited by them along with reasonable interest and compensation.

(2.) Since all the Complainants have entered into identical Undivided Share of land and Construction Agreements (hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement ") with the Opposite Parties; the facts and question of law involved in all the cases are similar except minor variation in the dates, and almost similar reliefs have been prayed for, these Complaints are being disposed off by this Common Order. However, for the sake of convenience, CC No. 2118 of 2017 is treated as the lead case and the facts enumerated hereinafter are taken from CC No. 2118 of 2017.

(3.) It has been averred in the Complaint that in the year 2011, Opposite Party No. 1, Sylvanus Builders and Developer Limited and Opposite Party No. 2 Pacifica (Chennai) Infrastructure Company Private Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the OP Builder) launched a Group Housing Colony under the name and style of "Pacifica Aurum " (hereinafter referred to as the Project) in Padur, OMR Road, Chennai, Tamil Nadu. Allured by the exaggerated advertisement and the assurances given by the authorised representatives of the OP Builder that there would be club, shopping complex, sports complex, amphitheater, hospital and every modern facilities in the Project and the physical Possession would be handed over within two years of the booking, the Complainant booked a Villa for residential purpose in the said Project for a total sale consideration of 1,03,59,118.73ps. (Rupees One Crore Three Lacs Fifty Nine Thousand One Hundred Eighteen and paisa seventy three only) by paying a sum of 1,00,000/- towards booking amount on 13/5/2013. The total sale consideration of the Villa was inclusive of (i) basic sale price, (ii) total sale consideration of UDS of land (iii) infrastructure charges, (iv) club membership charges, (v) TNEB/CMWSSB charges and (vi) maintenance charges in advance for two years. It was assured that the possession of the Villa would be delivered by 3/12/2015. Undivided Share of land Agreement/Agreement to sell and Construction Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the Agreements) were executed between the Parties on 10/9/2013. It was alleged that the terms and conditions of the Agreements were unfair, one-sided and only in favour of the OP Builder. Clause 22 of the Agreement reads as under:-