SAURABH SHARMA Vs. M3M INDIA PVT. LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This consumer complaint under Sec. 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') alleges unfair trade practice and deficiency in service in delay in handing over possession of a flat booked in a project promoted and executed by the opposite party within the promised time and seeking refund of the amount deposited with compensation and other costs.

(2.) The complainant states that on 19/7/2011 he booked flat no. MM TW-C09/0701 on 7th Floor, Merlin Tower C09, Sector 67, Gurgaon, Haryana admeasuring 2660 sq ft for a sale consideration of Rs.2,00,09,940.00. A Builder Buyers Agreement (BBA) was signed on 17/1/2012. Rs.2,03,11,475.00 has been paid by him towards sale consideration though opposite party admits receipt of Rs.2,02,75,940.00. As per clause 16.1 of the BBA, possession was to be handed over by April 2015. However, offer of possession was made by the opposite party on 6/4/2017 even though the flat was not ready or inhabitable. As complainant was entitled to a Timely Payment Rebate (TPR), a revised offer was made on 3/5/2017 on representation. Complainant made the final payment on 12/5/2017 but found that the opposite party had made drastic changes in the plans of the flat without intimation or approval. The living and dining area was reduced from 548 sq ft to 356 sq ft (by 192 sq ft) and a servant room of 75 sq ft was incorporated though it was not the complainant's requirement. Change in layout plans inter alia altered light and ventilation in the bedroom and kitchen and was unacceptable to the complainant as it was arbitrary and unjustifiable.

(3.) The opposite party's reliance on clauses 13.3 and 13.4 of the BBA to make changes in the plans is stated to be against the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Geetu Gidwani Verma and Anr. Vs. Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. (2018) SCC Online NCDRC 1164 dtd. 23/10/2018 and Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raghavan (2019) 5 SCC 725 that allottees being forced to agree to onerous conditions in agreements after receiving substantial payment constituted an unfair trade practice.