ASEEM MATHUR Vs. PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This complaint is filed under sec. 21 (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter 'Act') alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by M/s Parasvnath Developers Ltd, New Delhi, the opposite party, in respect of a residential flat booked by the complainants in project 'Parasvnath Exotica', Gurgaon, Haryana (in short 'the project') promoted and developed by the opposite party.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the complainants had booked a residential flat with the opposite party in the project on 4/4/2006 by paying a booking amount of Rs.11,53,200.00 under a Construction Linked payment Plan. As per Flat Buyer Agreement (hereinafter 'Agreement') executed on 4/4/2006 between the parties, Flat No. D5-403 admeasuring approximately 2810 sq ft was allotted to the complainants for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,15,32,000.00 and then the area was revised and increased to 2895 sq ft. Possession of the flat was promised as per clause 10 (a) of the Agreement within a period of 36 months with a grace period of 6 months, i.e. by April 2009. Between 26/4/2006 and 28/2/2008 a total sum of Rs.1,11,55,630.00 was deposited by the complainants in various instalments with the opposite party under the payment plan. However, despite timely payments, the construction of the flat has not been completed or any offer of possession been made by the opposite party despite the lapse of nearly 6 years as on the date of filing of this complaint, i.e., 4/8/2015. It is averred that the opposite party has been making false promises of completion of the tower and have revised the date of completion from 2008 to April 2010 and further to September 2010 citing reasons 'beyond their control'. On 12.03,2015 a demand of Rs.6,07,140.58 was made by the opposite party including Rs.46,958.00 towards interest on delayed payment @ 24% despite all payments having been made timely. Rebate for delay in possession was given for 19 months whereas the same was to be provided for 76 months. As the project has been inordinately delayed, complainants have claimed compensation for having stayed in rented accommodation in addition to compensation by way of compound interest @ 18% on the payment made and other reliefs. The complainants are before us with the following prayer seeking:

(3.) The complaint has been resisted by the opposite party by way of written submission. It is contended by the opposite party that delay is due to reasons not attributable to the opposite party in view of the global economic slowdown which also impacted the real estate sector. It entered into agreements with landowners on various dates for development of construction and development rights in 2005 and 2009 and after receipt of building licence, applications for building plan approval were made on 11/12/2004 and on 29/11/2007 respectively which included approval on 10/4/2009 for Pocket B. Out of the 18 multi-storied towers, 11 have been completed and more than 450 flats have been handed over. Occupation Certificate in respect of 5 towers has been applied for, including the tower in which the complainants' flat is located. However, the complainants did not agree to the additional amount of Rs.3,48,832.35 for the additional super built up area of 85 sq ft and to fit outs for which letter dtd. 12/3/2015 was sent. It is submitted that the complainants have no cause of action and are seeking to profit from the booking. They have also not been able to establish any cause of action or deficiency in service. The opposite party has relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharathi Knitting Vs DHL Courier World Wide Express Courier (1996) 4 SCC 704 wherein it was held that an agreement between parties was binding and could not be described as being one-sided. Opposite side has also relied upon Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgement in DLF Universal Ltd Vs Ekta Seth (2008) 7 SCC 585 where it was held that not having exercised the specific right to cancel the agreement, no grievance can be made by the complainant on account of delay in handing over possession.