REKHA SANJAY PAL Vs. ROCKLINE CONSTRUCTION CO.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Consumer Complaint has been filed under Sec. 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") against Opposite Party No. 1, Rockline Construction Co. (hereinafter referred to as Opposite Party Builder), through Opposite Party No. 2, Mr. Narinderpal Gupta, Sole Proprietor of Opposite Party No. 1.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that allured by an advertisement published by the Opposite Party Builder offering Flats in their Residential Project known as 'RNA Royal Park' situated at Building No.1 bearing survey No. 47, CTS No. 1016, 1016-1 to 4 at Village Kanjur, Taluka Kurla (hereinafter referred to as the Project) and specifically mentioning that the Project is 'Ready Possession with OC - No Service Tax - NO VAT, the Complainants booked a Flat in the said Project by paying a sum of Rs.28,54,270.25ps. towards upfront money of the total sale consideration of Rs.2,02,91,304.00 on 2/7/2016. An Agreementfor sale was executed between the Parties on 8/7/2016 whereby Flat No. 1605 admeasuring 836 sq.ft. carpet area on the 16th Floor of the Building No. 1 Wing 'A' together with 2 stilt Car parking, was agreed to be sold to the Complainants by the Opposite Parties. As per demand of the Opposite Party Builder, total sale consideration was paid to the Opposite Party Builder on different datesupto 25/8/2016. In November, 2016, a representative of the Opposite Party Builder informed the Complainants that Flat, in question, is 90% ready and the Complainants could start the carpentry work in the said Flat. When the Complainants approached the Opposite Party for taking possession of the Flat, they were informed that the possession would be delivered within one month. Despite repeated requests when the Complainants could not get the possession of the Flat, vide e-mail dtd. 20/12/2016, they requested refund of the amount from the Opposite Party which was replied by the Opposite Party vide letter 23/12/2016 and declined the request of refund but informed that the possession of the flat would be delivered by Feb. or March 2017. On not receiving the possession by March 2017, the Complainants sent Legal Notice on 24/4/2017. Vide letter dtd. 26/4/2017, the Opposite Party Builder informed that they were casting additional floor on the Building for which approval by the Municipal Authorities is awaited and only after casting additional floor on the Building, possession of the flat would be given to the Complainants. Vide letter dtd. 26/9/2017, the Complainants were offered possession of the Flat. It is alleged that Complainants were asked to execute some documents before possession of the Flat but the Complainants found the said documents prejudicial to their interest, therefore, the Complainants declined to sign the said documents. Alleging deficiency in service on the Part of the Opposite Parties, present Complaint has been filed with following prayer:-

(3.) The Opposite Party Builder contested the Complaint by filing Written Version and denied all the allegations made against them. It was stated that Clause 21 and Clause 66 of the Agreement for Sale executed on 8/7/2016 are relevant, which are reproduced hereunder:-