ALKA GUPTA Vs. DLF UNIVERSAL LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Consumer Complaint has been filed under Sec. 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, and seeking possession of the Flat, refund of the excess deposited amount along with ancillary reliefs.

(2.) The factual background, in brief, is that in August 2005, the Opposite Party/DLF launched the "Magnolias" project, which comprised 19 residential towers. On May 24, 2006, the Complainant applied for, and was allotted Apartment No. 2005, located on the 5th Floor of Tower No.20. The total sale consideration for the Apartment was Rs.4,52,62,500.00 for a super area of approximately 545 sq.mtrs. (5875 sq.ft.) and built up area of approximately 480.30 sq.mtrs. (5170 sq.ft). The Complainant paid an Earnest Money deposit of Rs.25,00,000.00based on DLF's assurance that possession of the Apartment would be handed over by May, 2009. On May 30, 2006, DLF sent the Apartment Buyer's Agreement (ABA) to the Complainant. The terms of the ABA were largely non-negotiable and heavily one-sided in favour of DLF. DLF retained the discretion to forfeit the Earnest Money if the Complainant failed to sign the ABA as presented. Under threat of cancellation of the allotment and forfeiture of the entire Earnest Money, the Complainant had no option but to sign the ABA. It is crucial to highlight that the Opposite Party applied for the Project sanction nine months after launching the Project, only on 29/6/2006, and 13/10/2006. The approval for the original plans was received much later, on February 27, 2007. In keeping with the commitment that possession of the Apartment would be handed over by May 23, 2009, the Complainant paid 95% of the total consideration, amounting to Rs.4.30 crores, by August 2008. However, one month before the committed date of delivery, the Opposite Party applied for an increase in the number of floors from 17 to 22/26 in different towers, and received approval for the same on 22/9/2009. This delay caused by DLF's expansion plans deferred the possession of the Complainant's Apartment. On April 20, 2012, DLF communicated a fit-out date to the Complainant. Ultimately, possession was offered on November 28, 2012, with a gross delay of three and a half years. This communication was conditional, compelling the Complainant to accept possession under the condition of not disputing an increase in the super area, which was approximately 9% more than the original area. The super area of the Apartment increased by 528 sq.ft., making it 6403 sq.ft. from the original 5875 sq.ft. DLF demanded an additional amount of Rs.39,60,000.00 for the increased super area without providing any supporting details. The Complainant, having lost all faith in DLF, engaged a registered architect to measure the area, which turned out to be only 459 sq.mtrs. (4927 sq.ft.) compared to the allotted 480 sq.mtrs. (5170 sq.ft). Therefore, there was no justification for the DLF's demand of Rs.39,60,000.00, and it has overcharged an amount of Rs.18.00,22,500.00. Aggrieved with DLF's deficient service and unfair trade practices, the Complainant filed the present complaint.

(3.) In view of the aforesaid facts, the Complainants have prayed as follows -