SANGEETA AGARWAL Vs. CHINTELS INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a complaint under sec. 12 (1) (a) dtd. 16/11/2018 filed by the complainants alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the opposite party (M/s Chintels India Ltd.,) and claiming refund of the money deposited towards the flat booked by them with the opposite party along with other damages.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the complainant had booked a flat on 8/8/2013 by depositing a booking amount of Rs.22,23,690.00in the project 'Chintels Serenity', Sector 109, Gurugram, Haryana, being developed by the opposite party. As per the allotment letter dtd. 19/8/2013 issued by the opposite party, flat no. E - 601, 6 th Floor, Tower E, in the said project with super area of 2100 sq ft was allotted to the complainants at a total sale consideration of Rs.1,64,09,050.00. An Apartment Buyer's Agreement was executed between the two parties on 6/5/2014 wherein, as per clause 11 of the agreement, the possession of the flat was promised by the opposite party to the complainants after a period of 36 months with six months grace period, i.e., by 17/1/2018. The payments were to be made stage wise and by 22/7/2015 the complainants had paid Rs.1,69,96,578.00 to the opposite party including the payment due "on possession". It is averred by the complainants that the possession had not been offered even on the date of filing of the instant complaint or till date while the opposite party continued to receive payments. The inordinate delay in the completion of the project, which is without any justification, makes the opposite party liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainants are therefore, before us with the following prayer:

(3.) The opposite party has contested the complaint. In his reply, it has contended that the complainants are not 'consumers' under the ambit of sec. 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and this is evident from the fact that they paid 50% of the payment due in one instalment against a discount which the opposite party had provided. It is therefore, contended that the complainants have booked the flat for speculative purposes. It has also been averred that the opposite party is ready and willing to give possession of the said flat. It has also been denied that time was of the essence in the Agreement or that there was an assurance of handing over of possession of the flat within the date claimed by the complainant. All other averments of the complainants have also been denied by the opposite party.