MONIKA PATNI Vs. EMAAR MGF LAND LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Aditya Parolia, Advocate, for the complainants and Mr. Aditya Narain, Advocate, for the opposite party.

(2.) Monika Patni and Manish Kumar Patni have filed above complaint for directing the opposite party to (i) refund entire amount deposited by them, including loan amount advanced by Axis Bank Limited and loss of Income Tax Rebate with interest @24% per annum, or in alternative (ii) provide alternate accommodation of identical size in same locality, complete in all respect, along with delayed compensation in the form of interest @24% per annum on the deposit of the complainants for the delayed period, (iii) refund the amount of parking charges and PLC charges, with interest @24% per annum, or in alternative (iv) refund @Rs.8000.00, per sq.ft. of the super area, as allotted to the complainants, (v) refund amount of interest realized by the opposite party with interest @24% per annum, (vi) pay compensation of Rs.25.00 lacs, for mental agony and harassment; and (vii) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(3.) The complainants stated that Ms. Monika Patni worked in the field of education and Manish Kumar Patni worked at senior positions in top corporates in financial services and the banks. After leaving their previous carriers, the complainants were engaged in their self-employment. Emaar MGF Land 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 and selling its unit to the prospective buyers. The opposite party launched a group housing project, in the name of "Palm Garden" at village Kherki Daula, Sector-83, Gurgaon, in the year 2011 and made wide publicity of its facilities and amenities. Believing upon the representations and promises of the opposite party, the complainants, who were searching for their residence in the locality, booked an apartment on 11/9/2011 and deposited booking amount Rs.750000.00. The opposite party allotted Apartment no.PGN-02-1103, size 1900 sq.ft., basic price Rs.9025000.00, (exclusive of Taxes, External Development Charges and Infrastructure Development Charges) + Rs.829350.00 as Preferential Location Charges + Rs.300000.00 as Car Parking space, on 18/10/2011 and executed Buyer's Agreement in their favour on 23/1/2012. Annexure-3 of the agreement provides "construction link payment plan". Clause-10(a) of the agreement provides 36 months period from the date of start of construction, for handing over possession with grace period of 3 months. Construction was started in August, 2012. The complainants diligently followed payment plan and deposited Rs.10174025.00 till September, 2015. The complainants took loan of Rs.68.00 lacs, sanctioned on 7/5/2014, from Axis Bank Limited, for payment of instalments. The opposite party vide letter dtd. 28/5/2015, sought for consent for revision of layout plan, which was objected by the complainants. Due date of possession including grace period expired in October, 2015 but the opposite party could not complete construction nor offered possession. Clause-12(a) of the agreement provides that the company shall pay compensation @Rs.7.5 per sq.ft. per month on super area, for the period beyond 39 months. But the opposite party did not pay delayed compensation. The complainants gave notices dtd. 28/12/2016, 31/12/2016 and 4/1/2017, for refund of their amount along with interest but the opposite party did not respond. The opposite party committed unfair trade practice, inasmuch as layout plan was approved on 22/3/2012, while the opposite party started collection of money since 11/9/2011. The opposite party has collected PLC charges, on the ground that the apartment of the complainants was faced with green area of 8 acres across boundary but proposed green area was compromised and reduced to 15756 sq.mtrs. The opposite party has illegally realized car parking charge. Buyer's Agreement is one sided and arbitrary as in case of delay in payment of instalment, the opposite party was charging interest @24% per annum, while in case of delay in possession only compensation @Rs.7.5 per sq.ft. per month on super area was payable. The opposite party sought revision of map in May, 2015 although by that time construction would have been completed. The opposite party realized 90% of sale consideration but failed to give possession on due date as such there was deficiency in service. The complainants have taken loan from the bank and were burdened to pay its EMI. The complaint was filed on 13/2/2018, alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.