AAYUSH SUSEELAN VANCHANMAL Vs. LUCINA LAND DEVELOPMENT LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. U.C. Mittal, Advocate, for the complainants and Mr. Rajan Raj, Advocate, for the opposite parties-1 & 4.

(2.) Aayush Suseelan Vanchanmal and Suseelan Athiruvelil Kochkunju filed aforementioned complaint, for directing the opposite parties-1 & 4 (hereinafter referred to as the builder) (i) to revise the cost of the flat as per scheme launched in June, 2013 and give interest relaxation, EMI and repayment etc. up to August, 2016 and also to revise/resettle subject to extended date of possession, (ii) to adjust the cost of 74 sq.ft. land, which has been reduced in revised layout plan, towards balance payment, (iii) to pay compensation of Rs.20.00 lacs, for cancelling premium facilities i.e. dedicated

(3.) acres podium garden and premium club house, (iv) to provide information of entire chain of title of the land, opinion of the Advocate, in respect of title of the land, encumbrance on the land, date of possession of the flat, nature of the title to be passed upon the complainants and common area and facilities to be provided by the builder, (v) to provide draft copy of Agreement to sell, (vi) to execute and register the Agreement to sell, (vii) to pay interest on the loan to opposite party-2 and not to recover instalments. In alternative (ix) to refund entire amount deposited by the complainants with interest @18% per annum from the date of respective deposit till payment, (x) to pay Rs.50.00 lacs as the damages for escalation of the cost, (xi) to pay damages of Rs.50.00 lacs, for mental agony and harassment, (xii) to pay costs of the litigation and (xiii) any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. At the time of final argument, alternative relieves- (ix) to (xiii) were pressed. 3.The facts, as stated in the complaint and emerged from the documents attached with the complaint, are that the builder was a company, engaged in the business of development and construction of residential and commercial buildings and selling its unit to the prospective buyers. In the year 2012, the builder launched a project of group housing in the name of "Indiabulls Greens" at village Kon, taluka Panvel, district Raigad, Maharashtra and made wide publicity. On coming to know about this project, the complainants visited the office and site of the builder and discussed about the project. The representatives of the builder assured that the building would be completed and possession be delivered till December, 2014 or January, 2015. The complainants booked a 3BHK flat on 27/11/2012 and were allotted Flat-901, Tower-21 (carpet area 1390 sq.ft, super area 2084, total sale price Rs.14373220.00). The complainants opted for "Interest Subvention Scheme", under which 15% of total sale price had to be paid within 30 days, 80% had to be financed by opposite party-2 within 45 days and 5% had to be paid at the time of possession. The builder agreed that till offer of possession, the interest on the loan amount would be borne by them. M/s. Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited (opposite party-2) advanced the loan amount of Rs.11853882.00 on 31/12/2012 and paid to the builder, on execution of tripartite agreement dtd. 31/12/2012, in which the builder took liability of interest on the loan for a period of 24 months. The builder issued an email dtd. 14/5/2013, for execution of agreement for sale. The complainants vide email dtd. 16/5/2013, inquired about statutory approval/clearance and the stage of construction but the builder gave vague reply vide email dtd. 13/6/2013. The complainant visited the site on 8/6/2013 and 13/7/2013 and found that even excavation work of Tower-21 was not done. The builder launched a second Phase scheme for sale of the flats of Tower-21, in June, 2013. In this scheme, the costs of the flats of Tower-21 was reduced (total reduction of Rs.2315230.00) and expected date of possession was given as December, 2018. The complainants then approached the builder and made inquiry in respect of second Phase. They were informed that in latest approval of layout plan, podium garden and premium club house were cancelled as such the cost of the flats were reduced. The complainants asked to provide benefits of second Phase to them, which was denied. This complaint was filed on 30/6/2014 on the allegations that the builder has committed unfair trade practice, inasmuch as 95% sale price was realised till December, 2012 but the construction was not started and layout plan has been changed, deleting podium garden and premium club house and benefit of reduction of price was denied to them.