DEEPAK RAI Vs. BESTECH INDIA PVT. LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Saurabh Prakash, Advocate, for the complainant and Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate, for the opposite party.

(2.) Deepak Rai has filed above complaint for directing the opposite party (i) to deliver possession of the flat to the complainant forthwith, for the amount already paid or in alternative (ii) to refund Rs.3.50 crores i.e. the price of the flat in question as per email of the opposite party dtd. 14/10/2014, with interest @15% per annum, from the date of the delay in possession till realization, (iii) to pay Rs.2.00 lacs, as cost of litigation and (iv) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(3.) The complainant stated that the opposite party was a company, incorporated under 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 "Park View Spa" in Sector-47, Gurgaon and gave attractive advertisements in the year 2005. The Director and agent of the opposite party approached the complainant and informed that the land of the project was free from all encumbrances and they had obtained requisite approvals and sanctions for development and construction of the project. Lured with the representation, assurance and advertisements of the opposite party, the complainant booked a 4 BR flat and was allotted Unit No. E-1301, admeasuring 2875 sq.ft, for sale price of Rs.9094250.00, of the flat, two covered parking and other charges, on 5/9/2005. Payment plan was "Construction Linked Payment Plan". As per demand, the complainant paid Rs.300000.00 on 12/9/2005, Rs.700000.00 on 20/9/2005, Rs.700000.00 on 25/12/2005, Rs.50000.00 on 25/10/2006, Rs.2313093.77 on 9/2/2010, Rs.1583781.25 on 13/4/2010, Rs.1031593.00 on 30/8/2010, Rs.32840.00 on 26/2/2011, Rs.50000.00 on 22/5/2011, Rs.404754.00 on 10/9/2011, Rs.646290.00 on 23/11/2011, Rs.404755.00 on 30/12/2011, Rs.809509.00on 17/3/2012 and Rs.406785.50 on 20/8/2012 (total Rs.9433401.52). The opposite party sent a draft of "Flat Buyer's Agreement" to the complainant on 7/2/2007, which was signed by the complainant and returned back to the opposite party on 20/5/2007. The opposite party, vide letter dtd. 25/9/2006 demanded Rs.92000.00, towards Infrastructure Development Charge. The opposite party, vide letter dtd. 16/12/2006, demanded Rs.1005687.00 and also issued reminders dtd. 3/1/2007, 9/2/2007, 20/9/2008 and 4/11/2008 in this respect. As, the construction was not started on the site, as such, the complainant did not respond the demand notice dtd. 16/12/2006, in time. The opposite party, vide letter dtd. 19/1/2008, informed that they were in process of exchange the land to have a better land profile. The opposite party, vide letter dtd. 12/8/2008, informed that they had obtained Zoning Approval. Thereafter, they, vide letter dtd. 14/5/2009, informed that "Bhoomi Pujan" was done on the site. The opposite party, vide letter dtd. 6/7/2009, informed that sample flat would be shown on 11/7/2009. Thereafter, they, vide letter dtd. 1/8/2009, informed that 'super built up area' had been increased to 3125 sq.ft. and vide letter dtd. 7/9/2009, demanded Rs.705000.00 towards increase of 'super built up area'. The opposite party, vide letter dtd. 10/11/2010, demanded Rs.32840.00 towards service tax. The opposite party, vide letter dtd. 4/2/2011, demanded Rs.180000.00 as cost of POP, false ceiling etc. The opposite party, vide letter dtd. 18/10/2011, demanded Rs.646290.00 towards compound interest @18% per annum. The opposite party, vide letter dtd. 3/7/2013, offered 'permissive possession' and demanded Rs.4049309.00 as balance dues. Although there was delay of about 5 years, in offer of possession but delayed compensation was not adjusted in statement of account. The opposite party, vide letter dtd. 12/3/2014, demanded 2% VAT. The complainant gave a legal notice dtd. 21/7/2014, which was replied by the opposite party on 18/9/2014 and denied all the allegations of the notice. Then the complaint was filed on 20/5/2015, alleging unfair trade practice.