SANJAY GOPINATH Vs. PARAMJIT SINGH BAWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Deepak Kr. Khushalani, Advocate, for the complainants and Mr. Sameer Chaudhary, Advocate, for the opposite parties.

(2.) Above complaints relate to same project 'Skyon' and against same opposite party for the relief of compensation for delay in handing over possession and other consequential reliefs as such these complaints were heard together and are decided by common order.

(3.) Sanjay Gopinath and Preethi Gopinath have filed CC/1902/2016, for directing the opposite party to (i) pay interest @18% per annum compounded quarterly from April, 2015 till the date of delivery of possession; (ii) pay Rs.50000.00 per month, from April, 2015 till the date of delivery of possession; (iii) refund/adjust the amount of 'service tax' as realized from the complainants, towards his other dues; (iv) pay Rs.500000.00 as compensation for mental agony and harassment; and (v) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. The complainants stated that M/s IREO Private Limited (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 'Skyon' at Village Ullawas, Tehsil Sohna, Golf Course Extension Road, Sector-60, Gurgaon, in the year 2012 and made wide publicity of its facilities and amenities. The opposite party invited booking applications in its upcoming project 'Skyon'. The complainants booked a flat on 8/11/2012 and deposited booking amount. The opposite party issued Allotment Offer Letter on 15/11/2012, allotting Unit No. SY-A-06-10, super area 2033 sq.ft. Along with allotment letter, 'construction linked payment plan' was attached, in which, basic sale price @Rs.9100.00 per sq.ft. and Preferential Location Charge @Rs.1500.00 per sq.ft. were mentioned. The complainants inquired in this respect from the opposite party, who assured delivery of possession in schedule time. The opposite party executed Apartment Buyer's Agreement on 27/12/2012. In clause-13.3 of the agreement provides 42 months period from the date of approval of the Building Plan and/or fulfilment of the preconditions imposed thereunder with grace period of 180 days as 'commitment period'. Clause-13.4 provides for delay compensation after expiry of aforesaid period. The complainants, vide letter dtd. 4/11/2016, made a query from the opposite party in respect of date of approval of building plan, which was informed as 27/9/2011, vide email dtd. 16/11/2016. 'Commitment Period' expired on 26/3/2015 and grace period expired on 26/9/2015. As per demand, the complainants deposited Rs.22255263.00 till June, 2016. Although the complainants deposited about 95% of the consideration but the opposite party neither offered possession nor gave delay compensation. Delhi High Court in Suresh Kumar Bansal Vs. Union of India, held that 'service tax' was not payable on building construction. The amount of 'service tax' realized from the complainants is liable to be refunded/adjusted. The complaint was filed on 23/11/2016. The opposite party in the Affidavit of M.K. Singh, filed on 20/12/2022, stated that the complainants completed formalities of papers and deposited Rs.1295000.00 through cheque dtd. 10/2/2018 and took possession on 16/2/2018.