MOHAN KHANNA Vs. JAI PRAKASH ASSOCIATE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This complaint has been filed under sec. 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on account of delay in handing over the possession of the flat booked with the opposite party in a project promoted and developed by it.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the complainant had booked a flat no. I 2-2701 in "Imperial Court" at Jaypee Greens, Noida a project of the opposite party for a sale consideration of Rs.2,04,33,150.00 on 11/10/2010. An apartment measuring 3510 sq ft was provisionally allotted vide provisional allotment letter dtd. 20/4/2011 which indicated the date of delivery of the apartment within 36 months from that date, i.e., by 19/7/2014. The Opposite party offered the possession of subject flat on 25/10/2016 which was a sham and was circulated in haste by opposite party to disclaim paying compensation for delay beyond 25/10/2016 and trapped the complainant into making all payments as well as to get the sub-lease deed executed prior to the completion of construction of the apartment. It was submitted by the complainant that subject apartment registered in his favour on 16/3/2017 as per sub-lease deed draft. The opposite party offered possession of the said flat on 23/3/2018, i.e., 44 months after the promised date of possession. The complainant has taken possession of the apartment and sought compensation for the delay in handing over the flat. The complainants paid the sale consideration by way of various instalments from time to time. The opposite party charged extra amount from complainant for two reserved stilt car parking slots at the time of allotment. Complainant also stated that allotment letter was amended by the opposite party vide letter dtd. 9/7/2012 whereby two more additional car parking slots were added. He has contested the increased super built up area to 3803.24 sq ft as against 3510 sq ft indicated at the time of booking of the flat. The complainant has approached this Commission with the following prayer:

(3.) The complaint was resisted by way of a reply filed by the opposite party. The opposite party has stated that there was no deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice in view of the applicability of force majeure conditions. It is contended by the opposite party that in view of the clause relating to arbitration in the terms of the allotment, this complaint is not maintainable. It is further contended that the indication of 36 months for the completion of the project was only an indicative time line, subject to "best effort". In view of the serious law and order problem due to the agitation by farmers, overall economic slow-down, orders of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) dtd. 11/1/2013, restraining all builders from utilising ground water for construction activities and orders of the NGT dtd. 14/8/2013 in the case of Amit Kumar vs Union of India and Ors., restraining construction within 10 kms of the Okhla Bird Sanctuary, the project was delayed due to reasons not attributable to the opposite party. It is contended that despite these constraints the opposite party has completed nearly 5000 apartments, a 500 bedded hospital, school, golf course, shopping complex, roads, security infrastructure, temporary club and parks. It is also contended that as per the letter of offer of possession dtd. 25/10/2016, a discount of Rs.9,57,797.00 was given to the complainant as compensation for delay in advance. It is also submitted that the opposite party was prepared to provide higher compensation than Rs.10.00 per sq ft., stipulated as per clause 7.2 of the application for provisional allotment to the complainant.