AMIT ARORA Vs. VATIKA LIMITED

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, Shri Amit Arora and Mrs. Kavita Arora against Opposite Party, M/s. Vatika Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Developer') seeking refund of the amount paid by them to the Developer towards purchase of the Residential Apartment along with interest and compensation as the Developer has failed to hand over the possession of the booked Apartment in terms of the Agreement executed between the parties.

(2.) The facts as narrated in the Complaint are that the Complainants had booked a Residential Apartment to meet their residential requirement in the Project, namely "Tranquil Heights", (hereinafter to be referred to as the "Project") proposed to be developed by the Opposite Party Developer at Sector - 82 A, Gurgaon, Haryana, by paying a booking amount of Rs.8,00,000.00 on 6/11/2013. The total Sale Consideration of the Apartment was Rs.1,49,73,915.00 which was to be paid in terms of Construction Linked Plan. Vide Allotment Letter, dtd. 20/11/2014, the Complainants were allotted Unit No.3803, on the 38th Floor, in Tower No. E having Super Area of 2265 sq. ft. It is stated by the Complainants that the terms of the allotment were simply dictated to them and they had no option except to sign the Allotment Letter under duress. The Complainants made all the payments from time to time as demanded by the Opposite Party Developer. It is averred that after a long persuasion, the Builder Buyer Agreement (hereinafter to be referred to as the "Agreement") was executed on 28/5/2015 that is nearly about one and half year from the date of booking of the Apartment which itself amounts to Unfair Trade Practice. As per Clause 13 of the Agreement, the construction of the Project was to be completed by the Developer within 48 months from the date of execution of the Agreement, meaning thereby that the possession should have been handed over to the Complainant on or before May, 2019. However, the Opposite Party Developer, despite their various assurances, has miserably failed to complete the construction of the Project within the stipulated time and hand over the possession of the Apartment booked by the Complainants. According to the Complainants, they have paid a sum of Rs.65,44,231.00 till 6/4/2017 out of the total Sale Consideration of Rs.1,49,73,915.00. The Complainants had lost faith in the Developer as considering the construction status of the Project shown on their official website there is bleak chances of getting the possession in the near future. It is stated that despite repeated visits to the office of the Developer and other representations, yet the Opposite Party Developer is not in a position to give an exact date of completion of the Project. Hence, alleging deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the Opposite Party Developer, the Complainants have filed the present Complaint seeking following reliefs:-

(3.) Upon notice, the Opposite Party Developer has contested the Complaint and filed its Written Version, inter-alia, raising preliminary objections that; the Complaint is not maintainable before this Commission for want of Pecuniary Jurisdiction since the total Sale Consideration paid by the Complainants is only Rs.65,44,231.00 which is less than the Pecuniary Jurisdiction of this Commission under both pre and post enactment of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019; this Commission has no Territorial Jurisdiction to entertain the present Complaint since as per Clause 46 of the Agreement, only the Court of Gurgaon have the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the any dispute between the parties, the Complainants are Non-Resident Indians who are residing in United Arab Emirates and they had made the multiple booking for the purpose of investment and earning gain; the Competent Authority to adjudicate upon the dispute is Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority; the Complainants are chronic defaulter in payment of installments and several letters were sent to the Complainants on 9/1/2014, 14/04/2014, 3/5/2014 and 5/4/2017 for clearing the outstanding dues; the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a defaulter is not entitled for any kind of relief under the provisions of the Act; after completion of the allotment process, on multiple occasions the Opposite Party approached the Complainants for execution of the Agreement, however, for the reasons best known to them they avoided to sign the same and consequently, the Agreement was sent to them on 23/6/2015;.