RUPIKA ARORA Vs. EMAAR MGF LAND LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Nithin Chandran, Advocate, for the complainants and Mr. Rabin Majumder, Advocate, for the opposite party.

(2.) Rupika Arora and Pankaj Kumar Arora have filed above complaint for directing the opposite party (i) to buy back the property at a value calculated @24% per annum, compounded monthly plus the amount paid till date from the date of first payment made as the builder has misused the money paid by the complainants for its commercial purposes and the complainants have suffered financial loss including interest paid to HDFC Limited amounting to Rs.3254779.00, including loan processing and legal fees till October, 2015, loss of rent paid from October, 2015 till the date, amounting to Rs.806000.00 and loss of Income Tax rebate amounting to Rs.2400000.00 towards repayment of principal, OR in the alternative to provide a ready to move in apartment immediately to the buyers which is of identical size and in a similar locality and of the same standard and specification along with compensation @24% per annum on the total amount paid, from due date of possession till the date of actual possession, OR in alternative to pay money calculated @ Rs.8000.00 per sq.ft. of basic sale price for the super area of the flat, OR In alternative refund the excess amounts collected as (a) BSP @ Rs.500.00 per sq.ft., (b) PLC @ Rs.350.00 per sq.ft. (c) For 24 mtr road @ Rs.350.00 i.e. Rs.2064000.00 (d) wrongly charging Rs.300000.00 as car parking with interest @24% from the date of payment, (e) delayed possession penalty @24% from the due date of possession, (f) refund of service tax with interest and 24% interest on EDC/IDC charged extra and not paid to government, (ii) to pay adequate compensation, for mental agony and harassment, (iii) to direct HDFC Limited to waive off all the interest on loan and refund the amount of interest already realized, (iv) to direct the opposite party to pay loan amount of HDFC Limited, (v) to direct HDFC Limited to write to the CIBIL to reinstate the scores of the complainants as they would have been as if this default did not occur at all and (v) pay Rs.5.00 lacs, as cost of the litigation.

(3.) The facts as stated in complaint and emerged from the documents are that EMAAR MGF Land Limited (the opposite party) was a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of development and construction of residential and commercial buildings and selling its unit to the prospective buyers. The opposite party launched a project of group housing in the name of "Palm Garden" at village Kherki Daula, Sector-89, Gurgaon in the year 2010. Parichit Pandey and Mrs. Sunita Pandey (predecessor-in-interest of the complainants) booked a flat in "Palm Garden" and deposited Rs.750000.00 on 2/1/2012. The opposite party allotted Unit No. PGN-01-0804, area 1720 sq.ft., basic sale price Rs7912000/- (total sale price Rs.9346142.16) to them on 30/1/2012 and executed Buyer's Agreement dtd. 16/2/2012 in favour of Parichit Pandey and Mrs. Sunita Pandey. Payment Plan was "Construction Linked Payment Plan". The original allottees deposited Rs.333499.00 on 14/3/2012, Rs.353699.00 on 29/3/2012, Rs.132000.00 on 29/3/2012, Rs.485699.00 on 17/4/2012, Rs.333499.00 on 17/4/2012, Rs.331195.00 on 25/5/2012, Rs.423329.00 on 13/8/2012 and Rs.23826.00 on 6/2/2013, as per demand of the opposite party. With the prior permission of the opposite party, Parichit Pandey and Mrs. Sunita Pandey sold the aforesaid flat to the complainants on 20/2/2013 and their names have been recorded by the opposite party over aforesaid flat on 5/3/2013. Thereafter, the complainants paid the instalments as per demand made by the opposite party. The complainants deposited about 95% of sale price till 2014-2015, including deposit of their predecessors and for that purpose they took loan of Rs.88.00 lacs from HDFC Limited on very high rate of interest, for which a tripartite agreement was executed between the parties in March, 2013. Vide clause-10(a) of the Buyer's Agreement, possession had to be given within 36 months with grace period of three months from the date of start of construction. The period of 39 months expired in September, 2015 from the date of sale made in favour of the complainants. The opposite party wrote a letter dtd. 26/4/2015, asking suggestion for revision of building plan of the project. Although the opposite party used to realize the instalments time to time but they did not proceed with the construction according to the schedule of instalment. This complaint was filed on 8/11/2017 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.