VIKAS JAIN Vs. M/S. CHINTELS INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a consumer complaint under sec. 21 (a) (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed by the complainant being aggrieved by the change in the layout of the project, delay in handing over the possession of the flat allotted and inability of the opposite party to complete the project as per the proposed plan resulting in deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and subsequent loss.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the complainant had booked a flat ad-measuring 2350 sq ft in August - September 2012 and was allotted flat no. 601 in Tower D in the project Chintels Serenity for which the complainant had paid an initial booking amount of Rs.24,84,211.00 vide two cheques dated 16.12.20212 and 15/11/2012. At the time of booking of the flat the opposite party had assured delivery of the possession within 42 months of the date of booking.

(3.) On 19/8/2013, the opposite party sought another payment of Rs.25,29,230.00 with additional amounts in the total sale consideration of the flat towards EDC, IDC, PLC, Car Parking charges, IFMS, club charges etc. The date of booking was changed to 19/8/2013. Thereafter, on 15/10/2013, an Apartment Buyers Agreement was executed by the opposite party wherein vide clause 11, the period of 42 months including 6 months grace period for the delivery of the possession was mentioned. Subsequently, the opposite party demanded various amounts on several occasion which was also paid timely by the complainant totalling to an amount of Rs.1,62,67,614.00. According to the complainant the total sale consideration was 1,93,55,795/-. He also obtained a home loan from the HDFC Ltd., in order to ensure timely payment to the opposite party. As the promised date of delivery of 36 months from the date of execution of the agreement elapsed on 15/10/2016, the complainant enquired about the status from the opposite party who informed that due to the delay in commencement of construction the possession would be delivered on or before 3/12/2017, as per clause 11 of the agreement, i.e., within a period of 42 months. It is submitted by the complainant that the opposite party made an offer of possession on 1/3/2019 along with final demand notice after a delay of about 15 months from the stipulated date of delivery as per the agreement. After repeated requests the opposite party arranged a site visit for the complainant on 4/3/2019, when it was noted by the complainant that the allotted flat was uninhabitable and the project was in-complete. It was also learnt by the complainant that the opposite party had divided its project into two phases with only 3 out of the 9 towers being offered for possession as part of Phase I. Consequently, over 50% of the area had been cordoned off for the construction of the balance six towers, leaving the complainant and other allottees in Phase I with substantially reduced common areas and amenities. It is contended by the complainant that the changes made to the project were unilateral and without consent. Instead of two large flats per floor, the opposite party had increased the number of flats per floor to four and substantially diluted the quality of the construction and finish. Instead of 330 flats which were spread over a large area, the number of flats had been increased to 450 on the same project area which resulted in reduction in common areas and amenities for the allottees. It is also submitted by the complainant that the flats in the same tower as the complainant are priced at Rs.7000.00 per sq ft., inclusive of taxes whereas the complainant is being charged Rs.8149.80 per sq foot. As the project in the present state does not conform to any of the representations and the proposed specifications provided by the opposite party at the time of booking of the flat, the complainant had declined to take possession of the flat. Efforts for an amicable solution did not fructify. He has therefore, requested for refund of the amount paid by him along with interest on 4/4/2019.