MADHUSHREE SINGH Vs. PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Ishkaran Singh, Advocate, for the complainants and Mr. Prabhakar Tiwari, for the opposite party.

(2.) The complainants have filed the aforementioned complaint for directing the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as the builder) (i) to refund Rs.24768529.81 along with interest @24% per annum, from the date of respective deposits till the day of filing of the complaint, (ii) to pay pendente lite and future interest @18% per annum, on the decretal amount, (iii) to pay the cost of the litigation and (iv) any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(3.) The facts, as stated in the complaint and emerged from the documents attached with it, are that the builder was a company and engaged in business of development and construction of residential and commercial buildings and selling its unit to the prospective buyers. In the year 2004, the builder launched a project of group housing in the name of "Parsvnath Exotica" at village Wazirabad, Sector-53, Gurgaon, Haryana and gave their glossy and fancy advertisements. Enticed with the glossy and fancy advertisements of this project, the complainants visited the office/site of the builder and discussed about the project with the officials of the builder. The officials, showing a site plant, informed that Towers A, B, C, D, D-1, D-2 and D-3 would be on the main portion of the project and Towers D-4, D-5 and D-6 would be contiguous to main portion, connected with a safe and secured internal road with boundary wall. The occupants of separate contiguous block will also have facilities of ATM machine, grocery shops, club, community hall, gym, shopping complex, beautiful children park, high quality jogger's pavements, badminton court, swimming pool etc., seamlessly among other facilities provided to main portion. Believing upon the advertisement and representation of the officials, the complainants booked a 3BHK flat on 4/4/2006 and gave a cheque of Rs.770300.00. The builder allotted Flat No. D-6-302, (tentative super area 2810 sq.ft. + car parking space, basic sale price Rs.11802000.00), Tower No.-D-6, in the project. Along with Booking Form, a payment plan was supplied. The complainants opted for "Construction Linked Payment Plan". Flat Buyer's Agreement was executed on 21/8/2007. As per clause-10 (a) of the agreement, the construction has to be completed within 36 months, with grace period of six months from the date of commencement of the construction. The complainants promptly paid the instalment as per demand letters. The complainants deposited Rs.770300.00 on 4/4/2006, Rs.1000000.00 on 4/4/2006, Rs.1000000.00 on 23/5/2006, Rs.250000.00 on 1/6/2006, Rs.230200.00 on 1/7/2006, Rs.826140.00 on 11/10/2006, Rs.826140.00 on 18/12/2006, Rs.826140.00 on 8/1/2007, Rs.826140.00 on 21/2/2007, Rs.630000.00 on 8/6/2007, Rs.1022280.00 on 1/8/2007, Rs.300000.00 on 8/11/2007, Rs.826140.00 on 19/11/2007, Rs.526140.00 on 26/11/2007, Rs.826140.00on 14/1/2008, Rs.826140.00 on 10/5/2008 and Rs.826140.00 on 6/8/2008 (total Rs.11511956.00). As per agreement, expected date of possession was November, 2009. Time to time, the complainants inquired about the possession of the flat and the builder gave some assurance for delivery of possession as early as possible. The complainants received a letter of the builder dtd. 29/4/2015, in which; there was no mention of the date of delivery of possession, rather it has been mentioned that the builder would provide delayed compensation. The builder, vide letter dtd. 2/5/2015, supplied Final Statement of Account showing that after giving rebate of Rs.625000.00 an amount of Rs.546576.62 was payable at the time of possession. The builder asked to deposit that amount for doing final finishing work. The complainants then visited site and found that only cemented structure was constructed and there was no approach road to Tower-D-6. In spite of paying about 95% of sale consideration till 6/8/2008, the construction was not likely to be completed in near future and demand was made only to extract balance sale consideration, which was payable at the time of possession. The complainants gave legal notice dtd. 19/5/2016, for return of the money deposited by them along with interest. When nothing was done, then the complaint was filed on 1/6/2016, complaining deficiency in service.