NEERJA Vs. ATS TOWNSHIP PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Consumer Complaint has been filed under Sec. 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, and seeking possession of the apartment, or in the alternative, refund of the deposited amounts along with ancillary reliefs.

(2.) The factual background in brief is that, in the year 2012, the Complainant became aware of a project by the Opposite Party known as "ATS One Hemlet," located at Plot No. GH-01, Sector 104, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. The project boasted various amenities such as a luxurious clubhouse, swimming pool, tennis, squash, basketball courts, jogging track, gym, and shopping arcade. Subsequently, the Complainant booked Unit Reference No. 09064, with a super built-up area of 1636 Sq. Ft. in the project, and paid Rs.5,00,000.00 on 19/6/2012. The Opposite Party issued a Provisional Allotment Letter dtd. 13/7/2012, containing completely arbitrary and one-sided Terms and Conditions. Opting for the down payment plan, the Complainant made the entire payment of Rs.97,78,212.00, except for Rs.5,50,000.00 which was to be paid at the time of possession. According to the Provisional Allotment Letter and Clause 7.1 of the Terms and Conditions, possession of the apartment was to be handed over to the Complainant by May 2013 (plus 90 days grace period), i.e., by August 2013. However, the Opposite Party failed to deliver possession of the Apartment within the timeline promised in the Provisional Allotment Letter. On 27/8/2013, the Complainant received a letter from the Opposite Party stating that the structure of all the towers had been completed, and the finishing work was in an advanced stage. It was further mentioned that there had been an upward revision in the super area of all the apartments, with the area of the Complainant's apartment being changed from 1636 Sq. Ft. to 1783 Sq. Ft. Consequently, the Complainant was informed that she was liable to pay extra money for the increased area at the time of possession. Subsequently, on 9/9/2013, the Complainant requested the Opposite Party to provide a copy of the site plan of her apartment showing the 'original' and 'increased' revised area with precise dimensions of covered and common area. However, in response, the Complainant received the 'revised layout plan,' which was identical to the original plan. In this backdrop, the Complainant informed the Opposite Party via email dtd. 14/9/2013 that she was not liable to pay anything further, as the change in the area without the consent of the apartment purchasers contravened the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership, and Maintenance) Act, 2010. Aggrieved by the deficient service and unfair trade practices of the Opposite Party, she filed the present complaint.

(3.) In view of the aforesaid facts, the Complainant has prayed as following -