BASANTA KUMAR NANDY Vs. DREAMZ INFRA INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Consumer Complaint has been filed under Sec. 12(1)(C) read with Sec. 13 (6) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") by the Complainants, in their representative capacity, agitating their joint, personal as well as collective grievance against the Opposite Party, M/s. Dream Infra India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Developer") for the inordinate delay in handing over possession of the Flats booked by them in the Project launched by the Developer under the name and style of "Dreamz Sneh" (hereinafter referred to as "the Project"). Since the interest of the Complainants and other Flat Buyers in the aforesaid Project is the same and identical reliefs have been claimed on behalf of all the Complainants, Interim Application No. 16217/2017 under Sec. 12 (1) (C) of the Act, was also filed with the Complaint to treat the Complaint as a joint or class-action Complaint. Vide Order, dtd. 13/2/2018, the said Application was allowed and the Complaint was treated as Joint Complaint on behalf of all the Allottees of the said Project. A notice was also directed to be published u/s 13 (6) of the Act in the Newspapers. Subsequently, I.A No. 10324 of 2018 was filed by some of the Allottees of the same Project seeking impleadment in the Complaint. The Application was allowed by this Commission, vide Order dtd. 29/5/2018 and accordingly, the amended Memo of Parties was filed on record.

(2.) The facts as narrated in the Complaint are that the Complainants had applied for allotment of Dwelling Units/Flats in the Project, namely, "Dreamz Sneh" to be developed by the Opposite Party Developer in Bengaluru. The Project was supposed to have a total number of 190 Flats, i.e. Block 'A' with 110 Flats and Block 'B' with 80 Flats. For the first time, the Project was advertised in March, 2012. The Memorandum of Understandings had also been executed between the parties from April, 2012. As per Clause No. 4 of the Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter to be referred to as "MOU") executed between the Complainant No.1, Basanta Kumar Nandy and the Developer on 5/4/2012, the possession of the booked Flat was promised to be delivered within a period of 18 months from the date of execution of the MoU, which time period was further extendable by a period of 6 months as grace period. Hence, the possession was to be given within a period of 24 months from the date of execution of MOU including the grace period of 6 months. It was also mentioned that in case of delay of the Project beyond 6 months after 18 months, the Opposite Party Developer shall be liable to pay the rent to the Flat Buyers at the prevailing market rate of the area till the actual date of handing over of possession of the Flat. It is stated that in terms of the MOU dtd. 5/4/2012, the possession of the booked Flat was to be given to the Complainant No.1 on or before 5/4/2014 including the grace period of 6 months, however, the Opposite Party Developer has completely failed to hand over the possession as promised in the MOU. It is alleged that in A Block, all the 5 floors have been constructed upto 80% and the work of flooring, bathroom fittings, window fittings, electrical fittings, outside plastering, corridor, lift and amenities is yet to be completed. In B Block, construction is still in the initial stage and only 10% of the Construction work is completed. It is further stated that vide letter dtd. 12/6/2013, the Opposite Party Developer unilaterally revised the date of handing over possession to April, 2015, however, the possession was not handed over even on or before the said date. The Opposite Party Developer vide letter dtd. 28/9/2016 informed to one of the Complainants (Vikas Gupta) that they were running short of funds and unable to satisfy the reasons for the delay in Project, however, it was promised that possession would be started to be given within a period of 8 months. It is alleged that the Opposite Party Developer had been regularly raising demands on the Complainants for payment of installments and as such there was no question of shortage of funds. The Opposite Party Developer has diverted the funds so collected elsewhere for its own purpose. It is further stated that the Opposite Party Developer has no intention of completing the Project and handing over the possession of the Flats to the Complainants despite having collected the huge amount towards Sale consideration from them.

(3.) For ready reference, the necessary details of name of Complainants, Flat Number, Booking Date, Date of Agreement, Schedule Date of Possession as MOU, Total Consideration and amount paid are given below:-