KALLOL BORAH Vs. HABITAT PRAGNYA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This consumer complaint under Sec. 21 (a) (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, 'the Act') alleges deficiency in service by the opposite parties relating to financial loss and mental trauma.

(2.) The facts in brief of the case as stated by the complainant are that he entered into an agreement for sale and construction on 20/9/2013 with M/s Habitat Pragnya Properties Pvt. Ltd., and booked a residential duplex flat no. 22 B, 1st Floor of Tower 22 in Habitat Crest, Opposite to Zuri Hotel, Rajapalya Hoodi, Mahadevapura Post, Bangalore 560 048, a project of the opposite party ad-measuring 2901 sq feet of super built up area,591 sq feet of landscaped area and proportionate share in common areas of 1375 sq ft along with two car parks in the basement for a sale consideration of Rs.1,77,54,500.00. As per the sale agreement, the said unit was to be handed over to the complainant by 30/6/2014. The booking amount of Rs.10.00 lakh was paid on 19/10/2013 and Rs.15.00 lakh was paid on 13/11/2013. The complainant obtained a loan of Rs.1,20,00,000.00 from the opposite party no.2 (ICICI Bank) and Rs.1,08,00,000.00 was disbursed on 28/10/2013 which was to be repaid over a period of 262 months.

(3.) As the project was not completed by OP no.1, on 30/6/2014 and as there was inordinate delay in the project, the complainant pursued the matter with OP No.1. On 15/6/2015, OP no.1 demanded further deposits through a demand notice and the complainant states that he paid OP no.1 based on the work done. However, OP no.1 served a termination of agreement notice on 31/3/2017 which the complainant contested as untenable since he had promptly paid for all the works done. It is stated by the complainant that the notice dtd. 12/4/2017 was in violation of the arbitration clause in the agreement. In September 2017, the matter was settled between the parties and the complainant undertook to pay the balance amount and to take the possession of the residential unit. It is however, alleged that in October 2017, OP no.1 demanded an additional exorbitant amount towards interest, penalty charges etc., which was reiterated on 13/12/2017. Thereafter, on 4/4/2018, the complainant called upon bythe OP no.1 to refund the amount paid or to register the residential unit in his name. On 17/3/2018, OP no.1 conveyed to the complainant a proposal to return the loan amount of Rs.1,08,00,000.00 to OP no.2 and Rs.47,18,968.00 to the complainant after deducting Rs.26,55,672.00. This amount was stated to be service tax and VAT paid to the Government. No proof of the same was, however, provided to the complainant nor for the amount included as maintenance fee for which no contract had been signed. This proposal was not acceptable to the complainant as it was unjust and illegal according to him and this was conveyed to OP no.1 on 25/4/2018. In reply dtd. 2/2/2018, the OP no.1 proposed refund of Rs.49,02,288.00 which according to the complainant indicates that the calculation of the OP was not based on correct accounts. It is stated that the club house of the project was handed over to the Habitat Crest Owners Association only in January 2018, i.e., after a delay of many years.