M.BALARAMAN Vs. PURAVANKARA PROJECTS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. S.P. Arthi, Advocate for the Complainant and Mr. M.C. Thimmaiah, Advocate, for Opposite Parties.

(2.) The Complainants have filed a complaint against M/s. Puravankara Projects Limited, alleging them of delaying possession of an apartment and demanding compensation. In May 2007, they booked a flat in project "Purva Swan Lake" for Rs.64,05,510.00 by paying Rs.1,00,000.00 as an initial amount and agreed to purchase Flat No. J-801. On 21/1/2008, the Complainants signed two agreements-one for the undivided share (UDS) of the land and another for the construction of a 1,716 sq. ft. apartment at a total cost of Rs.67.0002, 160 paid on 15/12/2007. The OP promised to deliver the apartment by 31/5/2010 as per agreement Clause V, with an additional grace period of six months. However, on 14/4/2009, the Complainants learned that other flats in the same project were being offered at a lower price of Rs.2,700.00 per sq. ft., while they had been charged Rs.3,600.00 per sq. ft. Complainant requested a price reduction, and the OP agreed to revise the payment benefits, but this never happened. In March 2015, the Undivided Share (UDS) of land was finally registered in the name of the Complainant's son after repeated requests, but the original sale deed was not handed over. Despite the OP's promise to deliver the apartment by 31/5/2010, the project was far from finished. The Complainants waited for over 100 months beyond the agreed delivery date, causing them financial strain due to rent and relocation costs. On 24/2/2016, the Complainants sent a legal notice demanding compensation for the delayed delivery, including Rs.3,26,761.00 as a payment benefit, delivery of a fully furnished apartment, and 24% interest on the Rs.67,02,160.00 paid. The OP responded on 1/4/2016, claiming the apartment was ready and offering only Rs.7,000.00 per month as delay compensation. However, the Complainants sent a rejoinder on 11/6/2016, arguing they deserved 24% interest due to the 100-month delay and the one-sided nature of the agreement. On 7/12/2016, the Complainants sent a final notice asking for either the delivery of the apartment with 12% interest or a full refund with interest and compensation. They also discovered the OP misrepresented the number of floors, leading to a reduced UDS share for their flat. This was ignored by the OP. The Complainants suffered financial losses, emotional stress, and disappointment as they waited for their apartment despite full payment in 2007. Complainant filed this complaint on 30/3/2017 and prayed before this commission:

(3.) The Opposite Parties filed their detailed reply on 27/12/2017 and filed the Evidence by way of Affidavit on 5/2/2019. The only material evidence filed by the OP are OPW-1/C which is the copy of allotment letter, OPW-1/E which is certificate dtd. 4/7/2014 by an architect stated to be "completion certificate" and stating, without naming the project, that the Block 1, 2 and 3 at survey No. 484, etc., has been supervised by them and construction of building work is completed as per plan. OPW-1/H is the email dtd. 1/7/2015 informing the complainant that the block J is ready for occupation. It is stated that the construction of apartment No. J-801 in the Purva Swan Lake project has been completed according to the specifications outlined in the sales agreement and the complainant was invited the take over the possession. The Complainants have been duly informed about the apartment's readiness for possession through letter dtd. 1/7/2015. The OP strongly refutes the allegations regarding a significant delay in project completion, asserting that while the Complainants claim to have waited for over 100 months for possession, this assertion is misleading because the possession was offered on 1/7/2015. The delay beyond the due date of inclusive of grace period of 6 months as per Clause V(1) of the agreement was due to factors beyond the control of OP and hence excludable under force majeure Clause V(15). The OP contends that any delays were due to unavoidable circumstances, including contractor's delays and need to change the contractor mid-way and other external factors beyond their control. Moreover, the OP states that the Complainants are entitled to some form of compensation for delays and that this compensation should be limited to Rs.7,000.00 per month as per Clause 9, as stipulated in the original agreement. The Complainants demands for higher compensation amounts are unfounded and not aligned with the terms set forth in their contract. The OP maintains that all legal requirements concerning the registration of the Undivided Share (UDS) in the land have been fulfilled, with the UDS registered in 27/3/2015 at the request of the Complainant No. 2. The OP also contests the Complainants' assertion for a price reduction based on reduced pricing in the market and states that variations in pricing are common in real estate and that the Complainants were aware of the pricing structure before entering the agreement. Finally, the OP mention that there is no merit in the Complaint and therefore OP are not liable for any of the reliefs sought in the complaint.