JAGRUK NAGRIK Vs. SHREENIWAS COTTON MILLS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. P.V. Moorjani, Authorised Representative, for the complainants and Mr. Rahul Kripalani, Advocate, for opposite parties.

(2.) Damodardas Jewellers has filed above complaint, for directing the opposite parties to (i) handover possession of Flat No.3801, East Wing, 38th floor, with 117 stories constructed building named as 'World One', with all permission of the government and local bodies and pay delay compensation in the form of interest @18% per annum on its deposit from 30/9/2016 till the date of possession; or in alternative (ii) refund entire amount deposited by complainant-2 with interest @18% per annum from the date of respective deposit till the date of refund; (iii) pay Rs.5.00 lacs, as compensation for mental agony and harassment; (iv) pay Rs.5.00 lacs, as litigation costs; and (iv) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts of the case.

(3.) The complainants stated that complainant-1 was a registered voluntary consumer association and used to provide legal help to the consumers and complainant-2 was a consumer. Shreeniwas Cotton Mills Limited (now merged and incorporated as Macrotech Developers Limited) and The Lodha Group (opposite parties) were companies, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of development and construction of group housing project. Opposite party-1 launched a group housing project, in the name of 'World One' at Cadastral Survey Nos.443, 444, 445, 445-P and 446, Lower Parel Division, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013, in the year, 2010 and made wide publicity of its amenities and facilities. Opposite party-1 advertised as 'The World's Tallest Residential Tower', 'Standing Tall Amongst The World's Most Iconic Tower', 'Paris Gave The World The Eiffel Tower', 'The Burj Khalifa Defines Dubai', 'Presenting The World Towers India's New', 'Global Icon', 'A Sculptural Statement So Powerful, It will Transform Mumbai's Skyline Forever'. The building was composed of three towers, uniquely curvilinear in shape. The World Towers from a stunning sculpture of glass and steel, soaring into the Mumbai sky. 'World One', the world's tallest tower. World view and world crest, two of India's tallest building, stand as powerful symbol of Mumbai's unfettered aspirations and unstoppable drive, destined to dominate the city's skyline and many more such as in their luxury brochure' etc. Mr. Umang Patani, an agent of opposite party-1 approached complainant-2 in November, 2014 and showed a lucrative coloured brochure and tempted that 'World One' at Mumbai would a tallest residential building in world i.e. several levels for parking and 117 upper floors. In the brochure, various fittings were provided viz. laminated wooden flooring, sanitary fittings, faucets and cisterns, door shutters, hardware, switched, elevators, mentioning the names of the suppliers of such fitting. The agent further informed that there would be swimming pool, steam and sauna rooms. Believing upon the representations of opposite party-1, complainant-2 decided to purchase one residential flat on 1/12/2014. Complainant-2 booked a flat and deposited booking amount of Rs.1800000.00 on 7/12/2014. Opposite party-1 allotted Flat No.3801, East Wing, 38th floor, carpet area 2044 sq.ft. total consideration of Rs.145728360.00. As per demand, complainant-2 paid Rs.13313197.00 on 10/1/2015, 14962065/- on 14/3/2015, 7316500/- on 26/5/2015, Rs.1489235.00 on 11/6/2015, Rs.617492.00 on 3/7/2015, Rs.255508.00 on 16/9/2015, Rs.15206502.00 on 15/12/2015, Rs.1001531.00 on 21/4/2016 and Rs.869543.00 on 2/9/2015 and Kotak Mahindra Bank paid Rs.29291400.00 on 1/7/2015, Rs.10000000.00 on 18/3/2016, Rs.8789107.00 on 18/3/2016 and Rs.18944687.00 on 22/12/2016 (total Rs.123856767.00). After deposit of four instalments, opposite party-1 executed Agreement to Sell dtd. 3/6/2015 in favour of complainant-2. In booking application, payment plan was 'construction linked payment plan' and total amount was payable in 19 instalments, while in agreement to sell, opposite party-1 unilaterally changed payment plan as 'time linked payment plan' and total amount was payable in 9 instalments. Date of offer of possession was mentioned as 30/9/2016. In order to make timely payment of the instalments, complainant-2 applied for home loan to Kotak Mahindra Bank, which sanctioned loan of Rs.102000000.00 on 28/5/2015, out of which Rs.67025194.00 was disbursed to opposite party-1 till 22/12/2016. After construction of 89th floor of the building, opposite party-1 stopped the construction but went on raising demands of instalments. As the construction was stopped, complainant-2 stopped payment of instalment. Opposite party-2, vide email dtd. 20/3/2017, informed that if payment of Rs.24401277.00 is made till 27/3/2017, then interest of Rs.2606345.00 would be waived. Complainant-2, vide email dtd. 26/3/2017, inquired that if they show permission for construction of 117 stories and start construction, it would pay Rs.2.44 crores. Opposite party-2, vide email dtd. 31/5/2017, informed that the application for permission to raise building above 89th floor up to 117 floor was pending before Civil Aviation Department and again asked to deposit, above amount. Opposite party-2, vide emails dtd. 13/6/2017 and 29/6/2017, informed that SGST and CGST would be increased from 1/7/2017 and deposit balance amount of Rs.3.60 crores till 30/6/2017, in order to save from increased tax. Complainant-2, vide email dtd. 29/6/2017, informed that he would deposit balance amount if opposite party-1 agrees to pay Pre-EMI interest till the date of receiving permission from Civil Aviation Department. Opposite party-2, vide email dtd. 21/7/2017, informed that Delhi High Court, had directed for a survey report, in relation to permission from Civil Aviation Department and they had positive hope. Opposite party-2, vide a letter dtd. 13/11/2018 offered possession and demanded balance amount of Rs.45129902.00, payable till 27/11/2018. Opposite party-2 demanded Rs.40753727.00 vide letter dtd. 28/11/2018. Complainant-2, vide letter dtd. 6/12/2018, sought for help of complainant-1 in the matter, who advised to file the complaint. Then this complaint was filed on 1/4/2019, alleging deficiency in service.