AJIT JHA Vs. EMAAR MGF LAND LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Santosh Mishra, Advocate, for the complainant and Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Rajeev Agarwal, Advocate, for the opposite parties.

(2.) Ajit Jha has filed above complaint for directing the opposite parties to (i) refund entire amount deposited by him with interest @24% per annum from the date of respective deposit till the date of refund; (ii) pay lump sum compensation for mental agony and harassment; (iii) pay the litigation costs; and (iv) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(3.) The complainant stated that opposite party-1 was a joint venture of Emaar Properties, Dubai and MGF Land Limited, a company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and opposite parties-2 to 7 were its office bearers. The opposite parties were engaged in the business of development and construction of group housing project and selling its unit to the prospective buyers. The opposite parties launched a group housing project of the villas, in the name of "Marbella" at village Maidawas, Sector-65 and 66, Gurgaon, in the year 2011 and made wide publicity of its facilities and amenities, giving rosy pictures such as "Exclusive Ultra-chic, Impeccably planned, Luxurious, Lavish Secure, Every word defines Marbella, one kind gated residential development comprising exquisitely appointed villas". Authorised representatives of the opposite parties approached the complainant during 2011 and reiterated their representations. The complainant, in his early 50s, dreamt of a home, where he would live with his parents and brothers and experience the joy of living together. The complainant inquired from Managing Director, Directors, Executives and other officials of opposite party-1, who informed that all necessary approvals had been obtained and possession would be delivered within 30 months from the 'commencement of the construction'. The complainant is an ardent believer of 'vaastu' and told the directors and authorised representatives of opposite party-1 that two 'vaastu' orientations i.e. (i) east facing villa and (ii) master bed-room at south-west corner, were compulsorily required. The Manager (Sales) took a specific note of the requirement of the complainant and consulted with the designing team. After protracted discussions of several rounds, Mr. Amitabh Dhawan, Vice President (Sales) and Mr. Ajay Gupta, Head Design short listed Villa Nos.68 and 69, which were east facing and communicated to the authorised representative, vide email dtd. 7/11/2011. The complainant selected Villa No.69, in which, master bed-room was located at south-west corner as per design, filled up application form on 28/11/2011 and deposited booking amount of Rs.30.00 lacs through cheque dtd. 25/11/2011. Opposite party-1 allotted Villa No.69, size 500 sq. yard, basic price Rs.76630000.00, vide letter dtd. 14/12/2011 and sent two copies of Buyer's Agreement, which were signed by the complainant on 7/2/2012. Annexure-3 of the agreement provides payment plan as "construction link payment plan", in which total consideration of Rs.81993822.54 was mentioned. For timely payment of the instalments, the complainant applied for home loan to ICICI Bank, which sanctioned a loan of Rs.55000000.00 and the complainant signed loan agreement on 23/11/2011. Opposite party-1 realized the instalment "on start of site infrastructure development" on 21/4/2012. Clause-10(a) of the agreement provides for handing over possession within 30 months from 'commencement of development work' with grace period of 90 days. Due date of possession expired in January, 2015. As per demand, the complainant deposited Rs.3000000.00 on 29/11/2011, Rs.2000000.00 on 9/1/2012, Rs.1000000.00 on 9/1/2012, Rs.2000000.00 on 9/2/2012, Rs.3790483.00 on 11/2/2012, Rs.225000.00 on 18/2/2012, Rs.775000.00 on 18/2/2012, Rs.1000000.00 on 22/2/2012, Rs.5074242.00 on 22/2/2012, Rs.5895242.00 on 13/3/2012, Rs.1179000.00 on 13/3/2012, Rs.7899786.00 on 24/4/2012, Rs.5960358.00 on 26/9/2013. Rs.5960358.00 on 25/2/2014, Rs.12145437.00 on 29/5/2014, Rs.5845094.00 on 30/6/2014, Rs.115264.00 on 30/6/2014, Rs.5960358.00 on 31/7/2014, Rs.3973572.00 on 31/12/2014, Rs.529743.00 on 19/4/2017 (total Rs.74328937.00). The opposite parties realized Rs.4.57 crores till March, 2014. In first week of March, 2014, the complainant met with the authorised representative of the opposite parties to discuss some cost-neutral customization of the Villa and visited the site whereupon he discovered that the "vaastu" orientation of Villa-69 had been completely reversed inasmuch as master bed-room was not located at south-west corner. The complainant through emails dtd. 3/3/2014, 11/3/2014, 19/3/2014, 30/3/2014, 8/4/2014, 15/4/2014 and 15/5/2014 requested the opposite parties to correct the location of master bedroom from north-west to south-west corner till 20/9/2014. The opposite parties, however, did not respond. The complainant tried to approach the Managing Director on telephone, but he did not pick up the call. Since the emails of the complainant were not replied, as such, payment of instalment was delayed in March, 2014 onward and the opposite parties charged interest @24% per annum for the instalments paid on 31/3/2014, 30/4/2014 and 31/5/2014. The complainant gave a legal notice to the opposite parties on 2/6/2014 to rectify the design of Villa-69 as per norms of 'vaastu', which was replied by the opposite parties through notice dtd. 17/6/2014, in which, they have stated that sanctioned layout plan of the villa was shown to the complainant and he had agreed that it had satisfied the "vaastu" norms. Subsequently the villa was constructed and now it was not possible to make any change, as required. As per agreement, the complainant has given consent for any alteration in design for Villa. The complainant then talked to the Manager's office who assured to solve "vaastu" orientation issue. The complainant applied for home loan to PNB Housing Finance, and a loan of Rs.64800000.00 was granted on 21/11/2014. Then the complainant foreclosed the loan account of ICICI bank. The possession was also delayed unreasonably due to which the complainant has been put to undue stress and harassment and the complainant had suffered severe anxiety and stress leading to depression. Due to which the complainant lost his opportunity for encashing first lot of company share worth Rs.5000000.00. The complainant was living in a rented accommodation since 14/11/2013 and duration of lease was expired on 14/11/2015. Then fresh lease was executed on 15/11/2015 for the period of 14/11/2017 on monthly rent of Rs.100088.00 and Rs.105092.00. The complainant withdrew Provident Fund from Hindustan Coca-Cola in 2011-2012, from Diageo India Pvt. Ltd. in 2013, from Indorama Synthetics in 2015 and February, 2016, from SAB Miller India in April 2016. By a letter dtd. 21/10/2017, the complainant requested for urgent release of matured Provident Fund, Settlement money withdraw from Tata Steel for his 20 years of service including Provident Fund, privilege leave encashment. In order to pay interest on home loan the complainant withdrew from his Insurance Policies, details of which are mentioned below:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_29_LAWS(NCD)6_2023_1.html</FRM>