MEERA YADAV Vs. EMAAR MGF LAND LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Complainants had booked a Duplex Apartment in the Project 'Palm Gardens' constructed/developed by the Opposite Party by filling an Application Form dtd. 27/8/2011 and paying a booking amount of Rs.10,00,000.00, for a total consideration of Rs.1,33,46,079.00. The Opposite Party issued a Provisional Allotment Letter dtd. 6/9/2011 whereby the Complainants were allotted Apartment No. PGN-11-0003 measuring a super area of 3750 sq.ft. approx. A copy of the Buyers Agreement was sent to the Complainants for execution. However, in the midst of executing the Buyers Agreement, the Opposite Party informed the Complainants that due to inability in receiving the requisite approvals for building a Duplex Apartment, the Apartment allotted to the Complainants was being converted into a 4-BHK single Unit measuring a super area of 1900 sq.ft. The Complainants accepted the change in Apartment from Duplex to a Single Floor Apartment. The Opposite Party issued a new Allotment Letter dtd. 19/1/2012 whereby the Apartment allotted to the Complainants remained the same, however, the super area was changed from 3750 sq.ft. to 1900 sq.ft. Thereafter, the Opposite Party executed a fresh Apartment Buyer's Agreement dtd. 16/2/2012. As per Clause 10(a) of the Agreement, the possession was to be handed over within 36 months from the date of start of construction alongwith a grace period of 03 months i.e. by 1/3/2016.

(2.) The Complainants made timely payments as and when demanded by the Opposite Party to the tune of Rs.1,14,37,433.00 (Rupees One Crore Fourteen lakh Thirty Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty Three Only). However, the Opposite Party failed to deliver possession within the stipulated time period and had offered possession of the Apartment vide Letter of Offer of Possession dtd. 12/11/2019 i.e. after a delay of nearly 04 years from the promised date of possession.

(3.) The Complainants visited the Project site to inspect the Apartment. To their shock and surprise, the north side of the Apartment which was to be a dedicated play area for children was completely covered by multiple 33000KW transformers. Furthermore, 1.5 acre mini golf course towards the east side of the Apartment, for which PLC was charged by the Opposite Party, was reduced to an open gymnasium. Aggrieved by the change in layout and the absence of the main elements for which the Apartment was booked, the Complainants sent a letter dtd. 3/12/2019 regarding their grievances. Vide said letter, the Complainants pointed out missing play area and the mini golf course and further emphasized on arbitrarily charged PLC towards corner house which was never demanded vide allotment letter dtd. 6/9/2011 yet was unilaterally demanded vide allotment letter dtd. 19/12/2012. The Opposite Party neither acknowledged nor responded to the said letter and the defects pointed out were not cured.