HITESH TANDON 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.) Hitesh Tandon has filed CC/1150/2019 for directing the opposite party to (i) handover possession of the unit allotted to him, complete in all respect as per specification with promised amenities and facilities within 6 months; (ii) pay delay compensation in the form of interest @12% per annum on his 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 the unit, amenities and facilities; (v) refund the money illegally realized in the head of increase in area, in the head of 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.8754140.00 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/1150/2019, the complainant stated that 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 "Mahagun Mezzaria", at Plot No.GH-01/A, Sector-78, Noida, in the year 2011 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 & cycling tracks, reflexology path, tennis court, etc. Believing upon the representations of the opposite party, the complainant booked Apartment No. 1217, saleable area 2350 sq.ft., basic sale price of Rs.11816545.00 Block Valencia, in the said project on 29/3/2012 and deposited booking amount of Rs.1198557.00. The opposite party issued Allotment Letter on 28/5/2012 of the said apartment. The complainant opted for "construction link payment plan". As per demand, the complainant deposited Rs.8754140.00 by 14/12/2015. Clause-10.4 of Allotment Letter provides that the opposite party shall endeavour to complete construction up to 30/6/2016 with grace period up to December, 2016. Due date of possession expired but the opposite party did not give any information for possession. The complainant, through email dtd. 6/9/2017, sought for various clarifications. The opposite party, through letter dtd. 9/10/2017, informed that expected date of possession as 30/6/2019. The home buyers association of the project held a meeting with the General Manager of the opposite party on 3/11/2017 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 association also gave a detail representation dtd. 28/3/2018, on the above issues. Then a meeting was held on 7/6/2018, in which, the various demands were accepted and payment was assured. Minutes of meeting were also recorded but nothing was done. As the opposite party was not responding the various issues and the construction was also delayed unreasonably, the complainant stopped payment. The opposite party, through letter dtd. 8/4/2019, cancelled the allotment of the complainants. The complainant sent an email dtd. 1/5/2019 for revoking the cancellation of allotment but it was not responded. At the time of booking, the complainant was 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 and again 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. 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 1/7/2019, alleging deficiency in service.