CHANDA MANGHANI Vs. M/S. RAHEJA DEVELOPERS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Consumer Complaint has been filed under Section 21(A)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act ") by Chanda Manghani and Rahul Manghani (hereinafter referred to as the Complainants) against Opposite Party, M/s. Raheja Developers Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Developer), seeking refund of the amount paid towards purchase of Flat alongwith interest as the Opposite Party Developer failed to hand-over the possession of the Flat booked by them in the Project launched by the Developer in the name and style of "Raheja Revanta " located at Sector 78, Gurugram, Haryana.

(2.) Brief facts as narrated in the Complaint are that the Opposite Party Developer launched a Residential Housing Project in the name and style of "Raheja 's Revanta " located at Sector 78, Gurugram, Haryana. The Complainants booked a residential Apartment for their personal use in the said Project by paying a sum of 6,81,315/- to the OP Developer on 15.03.2012. Unit No. A-181, at 18th Floor was allotted to the Complainant for a total sale consideration of 92,49,623/-. Agreement to Sell (hereinafter referred to as the Agreement) was executed between the Parties on 11. 05.2012. It was averred by the Complainant that the terms of the Agreement were one-sided and more beneficial to the Opposite Party Developer as according to Clause 3.7 in case of delay, the Purchaser was liable to pay interest @18%, whereas as per Clause 4.2, in case of delay in possession, the OP Developer was liable to pay meager compensation in the form of 7/- per sq. ft. As the Complainants have already deposited huge amount with the Opposite Party Developer they have to sign the unilateral Agreement. As per Clause 4.2 of the Agreement, the possession of the Apartment was to be delivered within 48 months from the date of execution of the Agreement, by 11.05.2016. The Complainant had opted for Construction Linked Payment Plan and had deposited 82,06,538/- on different dates as per demand of the Opposite Party Developer. Despite that the Opposite Party Developer miserably failed to deliver the possession of the Flat within stipulated period. Whenever the Complainant raised queries with the Opposite Party Developer regarding handing over the possession, the Developer neither provided any specific date for the delivery of the possession nor refunded the amount deposited by the Complainants. They have lost trust on the Opposite Party Developer and are no longer interested in having possession of the Apartment. Alleging deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the Opposite Party Developer, the Complainants has filed the present Consumer Complaint with the following prayer:

(3.) The Complaint was resisted by the Opposite Party Developer by filing its Written Statement in which the Opposite Party Developer stated the Complainants have already a property in Delhi and have booked the Apartment in question, for investment as such they do not fall under the definition of 'Consumer ' as defined under section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act, therefore, the Complaint is not maintainable.