LAWS(NCD)-2023-10-61

MEENAKSHI GUPTA Vs. M3M INDIA LTD

Decided On October 31, 2023
MEENAKSHI GUPTA Appellant
V/S
M3m India Ltd Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Dr. Arun Mohan, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Arvind Bhatt, Advocate, for the complainant and Mr. Jatin Sehgal, Advocate, for the opposite party.

(2.) Smt. Meenakshi Gupta has filed above complaint for directing the opposite party to (i) refund Rs. 32536845.00 with interest @24% per annum, from the date of respective deposit till the date of refund; (ii) pay litigation costs; and (iii) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(3.) The complainant stated that M3M India Limited (the OP) was a company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of development and construction of group housing project. The OP launched a luxury group housing project in the name of 'M3M Golf Estate', at village Maidawas, Golf Course Extension Road, Sector-65, Gurgaon, in the year, 2010 and made wide publicity of its amenities and facilities. The complainant and her husband visited the office of the OP and inquired with its Executives and Mr. Deep Gupta, the proprietor of M/s. Rainbow Estate, its channel partner, in April, 2011, who informed that residential apartment would be Golf Course facing, spread over sprawling 75 acres of land and star attraction would be that the luxury apartments be built overlooking a nine holes reversible golf course and possession would be given within 36 months. Believing upon the representations of the OP, the complainant booked Unit No.MGE-2 TW-01/10a, admeasuring 3655 sq.ft., Fairway East, and two car parking spaces and deposited Rs. 3691550.00 on 13/4/2011. The complainant deposited Rs. 26308450.00 on 26/4/2011, under 'Down Payment Plan' and balance Rs. 8200000.00 was payable at the time of offer of possession, as informed by the OP, vide emails dtd. 6/8/2011 and 19/8/2011. The OP issued Provisional Allotment Letter dtd. 11/5/2011 and demanded Rs. 677443.00 towards service tax, which was deposited on 12/7/2011. The OP executed Apartment Buyer's Agreement (ABA) on 1/9/2011, in which total price of Rs. 38202472.00 was mentioned. Clause-14.1 of the ABA provides 36 months period from the date of commencement of construction for handing over possession. The OP, through letter dtd. 1/11/2012, informed that the area of the Unit had been increased to 3799 sq.ft. and demanded Rs. 1388560.00 towards increased area and Rs. 470842.00 as service tax, which was paid on 27/11/2012. After expiry of 36 months period, the complainant used to inquire about possession from the office of the OP but no satisfactory reply was given. The complainant gave a notice dtd. 14/6/2016 to the OP, to cancel her allotment and refund her money with interest. In spite of service of the notice, the OP did not reply. The complainant wrote a reminder dtd. 2/8/2016, to the OP. Then the OP gave a reply dtd. 7/10/2016, stating that 36 months period has to be counted from the date of commencement of the construction, i.e. 3/11/2012; the construction of brick works and internal plaster had been complete and work was going on with full swing; and if the complainant ask for cancellation, then forfeiture of earnest money, deduction of brokerage and interest on delayed payment, would be attracted and balance amount was payable without any interest. The complainant stated that the OP had revised the building plan, twice, without any information to her, due to which, area of golf course was considerably reduced and its major portion was reserved for further construction. Star attraction was that the luxury apartments be built overlooking a nine holes reversible golf course. Due to revision of the map, the price was also increased. Three years period, from the date of booking expired in April, 2014. After realization of more than Rs. 3.00 crores, period of delivery of possession was unilaterally shifted in the ABA, from the date of commencement of the construction, which period has also expired in October, 2015. The OP has committed breach of contract and not entitled for any deduction. On these allegations, this complaint was filed on 23/1/2017.