PRADEEP BHARTIA Vs. NEXGEN INFRACON PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Anees Mittal, Advocate, for the complainants and Mr. Atul Nigam, Advocate, for the opposite party.

(2.) Pradeep Bhartia, Archana Bhartia and Manu Bhartia have filed CC/229/2019 for directing the opposite party to (i) handover possession of the unit allotted to them, complete in all respect as per specification with promised amenities and facilities within 8 months; (ii) pay delay compensation in the form of interest @12% per annum on their deposit from due date of possession till delivery of possession; (iii) pay Rs.6000.00 per day, in case the opposite party fails to deliver possession within the time stipulated by this Commission; (iv) pay compensation, if there is any deficiency in amenities and facilities; (v) refund the money illegally realized in the heads of increase in area and taxes or otherwise; (vi) restrain the opposite party from increasing maintenance charges to the extent of 15% in every year; or in alternative (vii) refund Rs.27813384.00 with interest @18% per annum from the date of respective deposit till its realization; (viii) pay Rs.500000.00, as compensation for mental agony and harassment; (ix) pay Rs.100000.00 as litigation cost; and (vi) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts of the case.

(3.) In CC/229/2019, the complainants stated that the opposite party was company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of development and construction of group housing project and selling its unit to the prospective buyers. The opposite party launched a group housing project, in the name of 'Mahagun Mezzaria', at Plot No.GH-01/A, Sector-78, Noida, in the year 2015 and made wide publicity of its facilities and amenities. The opposite party advertised that the project would have lush green surroundings with more than 80% open area, high level security inside the gated community including CCTV cameras, sensor boards etc., ample green space including themed landscaped gardens, aromatic garden, healing garden, earthquake resistant structure, project design based on vastu norms and build on an eco-friendly concept with spacious apartments, wooden furnishing, yoga/meditation, palm garden, swimming pool, kid play area, pool, party lawn, youth corner, multi-purpose gardens with water body, basketball court, jogging and cycling tracks, reflexology path, tennis court, etc. The opposite party provided payment plan as 'subvention plan'. Believing upon the representations of the opposite party, the complainants booked Apartment No. 1214, saleable area 4425 sq.ft., basic sale price of Rs.30941884.00 Block Eternia, in the said project on 20/4/2015 and deposited booking amount of Rs.100000.00. The opposite party issued Allotment Letter on 12/6/2015 of the said apartment. The complainants took loan of Rs.245.00 lacs from ICICI Bank, for payment, for which a tripartite agreement was executed on 15/1/2015. Under the tripartite agreement, the opposite party undertook to indemnify the complainants from any loss due to delay in handing over possession. The complainants deposited Rs.27813384.00 by 31/7/2015. Clause-10.4 of Allotment Letter provides that the opposite party shall endeavour to complete construction up to June, 2017 with grace period up to December, 2017. Due date of possession expired but the opposite party did not give any information for possession. The home buyers association of the project held a meeting with the General Manager of the opposite party on 20/8/2017 and discussed the issues of delay in possession, increase in FAR by revising layout plan without consent of the buyers, payment of GST, construction of commercial complex, non-payment of delay compensation etc. The opposite party, through letter dtd. 9/10/2017, informed that expected date of possession as 30/6/2019. At the time of booking, the complainants were shown Layout Plan as sanctioned vide Letter No.Noida/MVN/III-272/504 dtd. 2/3/2012, in which FAR was 2.75 and total dwelling units were 570 were shown. The opposite party revised Sanctioned Plan vide Letter No.Noida/MVN/III-272/553 dtd. 31/8/2012, in which FAR was increased to 2.89 and total dwelling units were increased to 700. The opposite party again revised Sanctioned Plan vide Letter No.Noida/MVN/2016/III-272/888 dtd. 13/4/2016, in which FAR was increased to 3.54 and total dwelling units were increased to 718. By increasing total number of units from 570 to 718, the opposite party has illegally created density upon common amenities and facilities. In Layout Plan as sanctioned originally, saleable area was 4150 sq.ft. for a 4BHK. By revising layout plan, numbers of the unit have been increased but at the same time saleable area was also increased to 4425 sq.ft. without any basis. The opposite party has constructed commercial complex for outsiders due to which, few roads were blocked and numbers of entry and exit gates have been reduced and thereby made the project as non-luxury project. The complaint was filed on 6/2/2019, alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.