URMILA Vs. M/S. VATIKA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Shaurya Lamba, Advocate, for the complainants and Mr. S.K. Sahni, Advocate, for the opposite party.

(2.) Ms. Urmila and Capt. Bhag Chand have filed above complaint, for directing the opposite party to (i) postpone delivery of possession of reallocated villa and raising any demand until the farmer behind the reallocated villa is evicted; (ii) pay penalty for delay in delivery of possession; or in alternative (iii) refund entire amount deposited by the complainants with interest @18% per annum from the date of respective deposit till the date of refund; (iii) pay Rs.5000000.00, as compensation, for reallocating a villa, which is exposed to farmer's land from backside; (iv) pay Rs.one lac, as costs of litigation; and (v) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(3.) The complainants stated that M/s. Vatika Limited (the opposite party) was a company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of development and construction of group housing project. The opposite party launched a group housing project in the name of "Bellevue Residences" at Sector-82, Gurgaon in the year, 2010 and made wide publicity of its amenities and facilities. Believing upon the representations of the opposite party, the complainants booked Villa no.S-76/240/Simplex/BR-A, admeasuring 240 sq.yds, built-up area 1527 sq.ft., total consideration Rs.9460237.00 on 17/2/2010 and deposited booking amount of Rs.5.00 lacs. The opposite party executed Builder Buyer's Agreement dtd. 6/4/2010 in their favour. The complainants opted for "construction link payment plan". Clause-11.1 of the agreement provides 3 years period from the date of the agreement, for completing construction with an extension for reasonable period. The opposite party demanded the instalment of "commencement of construction" in January, 2011, which was deposited by the complainants within due date. The opposite party, vide letter dtd. 20/1/2012, informed that name of the project "Bellevue Residences" had been changed as "Signature 2 Villas" and certain fine tuning in layout was being carried out. Along with this letter, the opposite party also sent an Addendum to Builder Buyer's Agreement, changing the number of villa as "Signature 2 Villa" No.27/240/Simplex/ST82D 1-4, in the project "Vatika India Next". The opposite party also demanded for next instalment of Rs.163799.00 in July, 2013, which was deposited on 22/7/2013. The opposite party did not start construction of the villa, even after six years of the booking. The opposite party raised next demand on 3/2/2016 "on start of excavation". The complainants insisted for site visit before deposit. Then the opposite party, vide email dtd. 16/2/2016, informed that the work was on hold due to forceful occupation of land by farmers in that area. The complainants then requested to allot another villa of same specification, which was complete or under construction. The opposite party informed that a villa of 360 sq.yds. is under construction likely to be ready till April, 2017. The complainants vide email dtd. 10/6/2016, requested for construction cost of this villa but the opposite party did not respond. After about 4 months, the opposite party send another Addendum dtd. 13/10/2016, allotting Unit No.23, S-2.1, Signature Villa 2, "Vatika India Next". As per demand, the complainants deposited Rs.500000.00 on 5/11/2016 and Rs.31085.00 on 22/11/2016. After repeated request, the opposite party provided site plan. The opposite party issued a letter of Intimation of Possession dtd. 9/11/2016, with demand of Rs.16090069.53. The complainants through emails dtd. 20/11/2016 and 26/11/2016, requested for site visit and through email dtd. 7/12/2016 demanded for "occupation certificate". The opposite party did not respondent. The complainants visited the site but they were not allowed to enter the said villa by the guards. On external examination, the complainants found that a farmer was staying and cultivating the land just behind, right up to the rear wall of the said villa. The complainants gave a legal notice dtd. 8/12/2016 to postpone delivery of possession of reallocated villa and raising any demand until the farmer behind the reallocated villa is evicted or refund entire money deposited by the complainants with interests. The opposite party, through email dtd. 16/12/2016, informed that rear encroachment was removed and they cannot show approvals on individual basis. This complaint was filed on 30/1/2017, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.