SUSHIL KUMAR BHATIA Vs. M/S. BPTP LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Consumer Complaints have been filed under Sec. 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short'the Act') against Opposite Party, M/s. BPTP Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Opposite Party Builder) seeking possession of the Plots booked by them in the'Amstoria Plots' to be developed by the Opposite Party or in alternative refund of the amounts deposited by the Complainants alongwith interest since the Opposite Party Builder failed to deliver the possession of the Plots within stipulated period.

(2.) Since the facts involved in both these Complaints are similar except for minor variations in the Plot numbers and their sale consideration, these Complaints are being disposed off by this common Order. However, for the sake of convenience, facts as enumerated in Consumer Complaint No. 947 of 2018 have been discussed at length herein.

(3.) The brief facts as set out in the Consumer Complaint are that the vide allotment letter dtd. 4/10/2011 Complainant was allotted a residential Plot No. D-24 measuring 495 sq. yard for a total consideration of 2,55,21,000/- in a Residential Housing Project, i.e.,'Amstoria Plots' situated at Sector 102, Gurgaon, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the Project') to be developed by the Opposite Party Builder. Plot Buyers Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the Agreement) was executed on 28/12/2011 between the Parties. It is the case of the Complainant that there are one-sided clauses in the Agreement which are only in favour of the Opposite Party but they have to sign the Agreement under the threat of forfeiture of earnest money. As per clause 5 of the Agreement, the possession of the Plot was to be handed over within 24 months with a grace period of 180 days from the date of the Agreement, i.e., by 28/6/2014 in the present case. Despite receiving substantial amount from the Complainant, the Opposite Party Builder failed to deliver the possession of the Plot within stipulated period, i.e., by 28/6/2014. Vide letter dtd. 27/10/2017, the Opposite Party Builder offered the possession of the Plot with an inordinate delay of about 3 years and 4 months. On visit to the site, the Complainant found that the Project is still not habitable and lacks of amenities. The Complainant raised the issue with the Opposite Party Builder by writing a number of E-mails but no response was received from the Opposite Party Builder. The Complainant issued legal notice to the Opposite Party Builder on 29/3/2018, but in vain. It is the case of the Complainant that there are one-sided clauses in the Agreement which are only in favour of the Opposite Party for example for delay in Project the Opposite Party Builder was supposed to compensate the Complainants with 30/- per sq. yard per month for first six months, 40/- per sq. yd. per month for the next six months and 50/- per sq. yd. per month for any delay thereafter whereas on the other hand, in case of delay in payment, the Opposite Party is entitled for interest @18% p.a. Similarly, the Complainant is also entitled for interest @18% p.a. for the delay in Project, since the Opposite Party Builder had utilized the Complainant's money in its other Projects and also transferred the funds of the present Project to other Projects in pipeline. The Opposite Party Builder vide E-mail dtd. 4/4/2018 sent a Indemnity cum Undertaking for Possession and asked the Complainant to sign the same, which was not acceptable to the Complainant since it was the apprehension of the Complainant that signing Indemnity cum Undertaking for Possession would take away his legal rights. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party Builder, the Complainant has filed the present Complaint seeking following reliefs:-