AMIT VERMA Vs. IREO PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Consumer Complaint has been filed under Sec. 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") by the Complainants against the Opposite Party, Ireo Pvt. Ltd. seeking the following reliefs:-

(2.) The brief facts as set out in the Complaint are that on 05/08/2013, the Complainants had booked a Plot admeasuring 358.80 Sq. Yards for their residential purpose in the Project, namely, "Ireo City" to be developed by the Opposite Party Developer at Sector-60, Gurgaon, Haryana and paid the booking amount of Rs. 40,00,000.00 . On 14.08.2013, the Allotment Letter was issued and the Complainants were allotted a Plot No. ICP-C-C01-54 for a total Sale Consideration of Rs. 4,40,32,794.00 . A Plot Buyer's Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the ("Agreement") was executed between the Parties on 30/05/2014 and as per Clause 11.1 of the Agreement, the possession of the Plot with all amenities and facilities was to be delivered within 36 months from the date of receipt of requisite approvals with a grace period of six months. It is further averred that all the requisite approvals were received by the Opposite Party Developer by 24/12/2013, meaning thereby, the possession of the Plot was to be delivered by June, 2017 (including the grace period of six months). It is stated that the Complainants have paid the total sum of Rs. 4,03,18,742.00 till 31/08/2015, as per the payment plan and specific demands made by the Opposite Party Developer, however, the Opposite Party Developer has miserably faced to deliver the possession of the booked plot with all amenities and facilities as per the Agreement despite having received the huge amount of Rs. 4,03,18,742.00 .

(3.) The Complainants averred that some of the Clauses of the Agreement are totally unreasonable, one sided and arbitrary and the Complainants were compel to sign the same under coercion as they had already paid a sum of Rs. 1,94,78,346.00 and if the Complainants had opposed the Clauses of the Agreement, the Opposite Party would have forfeited the earnest money i.e. 20% of the total sale consideration.