SIDDHARTHA LOIWAL Vs. VATIKA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Vidur Mohan, Advocate, for the complainant and Mr. S.K. Sahni, Advocate, for the opposite party.

(2.) Siddhartha Loiwal has filed above complaint, for directing the opposite party to (i) refund entire amount deposited by him with interest @18% per annum from the date of respective deposit till the date of refund; (ii) award compensation for mental agony; (iii) award costs of litigation; and (iv) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(3.) The complainant 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 'Vatika Tranquil Heights' at Sector-82-A, Gurgaon in the year, 2013 and made wide publicity of its amenities and facilities. Believing upon the representations of the opposite party, the complainant booked a flat on 15/11/2013 and deposited booking amount of Rs.8.00 lacs. The opposite party raised a demand of Rs.1391346.53, vide letter dtd. 14/1/2014. The complainant, vide an email dtd. 15/1/2014, requested to share the draft of BBA, so that he could know the terms and conditions, as by that time allotment letter was not issued. The opposite party wrote a reminder mail dtd. 20/1/2014, for payment. The complainant paid total Rs.3478366.00 due to repeated demand. Then a meeting was arranged on 8/10/2014, in which, the complainant came to know that (i) the opposite party had increased super area from 2150 sq.ft to 2290 sq.ft., (ii) the complainant was allotted a flat of preferential location without his consent, (iii) Tower E, in which the complainant was allotted the flat, had 4 apartments on every floor and all the apartments naturally had a corner and PLC charges was realized showing it as a corner flat. The opposite party issued allotment letter dtd. 8/10/2014, allotting Unit No.302, Tower-E, area 2290 sq.ft., 'construction link payment plan' and proposed layout but it did not contain the terms and conditions. The opposite party again raised demand of Rs.695673.00, which was deposited on 19/11/2014. The opposite party raised demand of Rs.271798.00 through letter dtd. 16/2/2015, for increased area. The opposite party supplied a format of the application for extension of period for payment and asked to sign and return it. Later on, the opposite party vide email dtd. 10/3/2015, informed that interest free extension was valid up to 16/3/2015 and the date was extended for fifteen days. The complainant made payment within extended period. The opposite party again raised demand, which was protested by the complainant and he demanded for execution of builder buyer agreement, which was required for obtaining the loan. The opposite party vide email dtd. 4/3/2015, informed to take loan from HDFC or ICICI Bank and on sanction of the loan, builder buyer agreement would be executed. After repeated requests, the opposite party sent Builder Buyer's Agreement on 21/7/2015, in which, the complainant found variations from brochure i.e. (i) The project was marketed as built on 2 sides of the road but map supplied with BBA showed that the road was only on one side of the project. (ii) The project was marketed approx. on 13 acres land but in BBA only 11.22 acres land was shown. (iii) BBA contained Price Escalation clause. (iv) Due date of possession was shown 48 months from the date of BBA. The complainant wrote several emails during 29/7/2015 to 25/9/2015, raising his protest against one sided and arbitrary clauses but the opposite party did not give any satisfactory reply. In the meantime, bereavement happened in the family of the complainant. Due to delaying the commencement of the project, the period of licence also expired. The opposite party sent reminder dtd. 13/10/2015 for signing BBA and returning its one copy with warning to cancel allotment. The opposite party issued demand letter dtd. 23/10/2015 for Rs.1233403.00 on 'Start of Excavation'. The complainant proposed to deposit it under protest on 8/11/2015, but he was coerced to cut 'under protest'. The complainant approached HDFC and ICICI Bank for sanction of the loan, who informed that the project was not approved by the bank till then. The complainant raised query/protest as to how renewal of licence was granted for 11.85 acres land, although original licence was for 11.218 acres land and demanded environmental clearance but the opposite party did not respond. The opposite party issued reminder dtd. 10/12/2015 and final notice dtd. 22/1/2016 to the complainant for signing BBA. The complainant deposited Rs.11697.00 on 4/1/2016 for TDS, Rs.9433.00 on 8/12/2016 for VAT. The complainant, vide emails dtd. 13/12/2016 and 4/1/2017, inquired about the progress of the project but did not receive any reply. The complainant visited the site on 29/12/2016 and found that due to issue relating to ownership of the land, the project was fully stalled. The opposite party raised demand on 'Start of Foundation' through letter dtd. 15/2/2017. The opposite party issued a reminder dtd. 5/4/2017, for above demand with warning to cancel the allotment. Then this complaint was filed on 11/5/2017, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.