HARPAL SINGH Vs. DLF ESTATE (DELHI) PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. R.P. Dangi, Advocate, for the complainant and Mr. Ritu Raj, Advocate, for opposite party.

(2.) Harpal Singh has filed above complaint, for directing the opposite party to (i) handover possession of Unit No.CGD-121, complete in all respect, as per specification, with all permission including 'completion certificate' and 'occupation certificate' and pay delay compensation in the form of interest @18% per annum compounded quarterly on his deposit from due date of possession till the date of possession; (ii) bear the brunt of increase in taxes, after due date possession; (iii) set aside the demand for increase in saleable area; (iv) if promised facilities and amenities are not provided then to compensate for it; (v) pay Rs.10.00 lacs, as compensation for mental agony and harassment; (vi) pay compensation under Sec. 14(hb) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986; (vii) pay Rs.1.00 lacs, as litigation costs; and (viii) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(3.) 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. The opposite party launched a group housing project, in the name of 'Capital Greens' at 15, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi-110015, in the year, 2010 and made wide publicity of its amenities and facilities. Believing upon the representations of the opposite party, the complainant booked a flat and deposited booking amount of Rs.1538625.00 on 20/1/2011. The opposite party allotted Flat No.CGD121, area 1465 sq.ft. and two parking spaces, total consideration of Rs.16865000.00. Payment plan was 'construction link payment plan', under which entire consideration was payable in 11 instalments till 20/4/2013. The opposite party executed Apartment Buyer's Agreement dtd. 13/9/2011 in favour of complainant. For timely payment of instalment, the complainant took loan of Rs.6576100.00 from State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, which was sanctioned on 23/1/2011. As per demand, the complainant paid Rs.17535633.00. Clause-11(a) of the agreement provides to complete the construction within 36 months from the date of application, which was expired on 19/1/2014. The opposite party, vide letter dtd. 20/8/2016, offered possession with demand of Rs.2571753.00 + Rs.162300.00 as Interest Bearing Maintenance Security. Cost of the unit was increased about 20% and several other authorised charges were added, in final demand letter. After due date of possession taxes were revised/increased. Although possession was delayed but delay compensation has not been paid. The complainant visited the site and found that essential service viz. electricity, water connection sewage line etc. were missing and club related facilities were not complete. There were several construction defects in the flat. The complainant, vide email dtd. 4/5/2017, supplied list of the snags to the opposite party and requested to remove deficiencies. But the opposite party did not respond. Then this complaint was filed on 15/5/2017, alleging deficiency in service.