CYRUS WARDEN Vs. ALIENS DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Consumer Complaints have been filed under Sec. 22 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, and seeking refund with ancillary reliefs.

(2.) The facts and questions of law involved in these Complaints are identical except for minor variations in the dates, consideration amount and Flat numbers.Therefore these Complaints are being disposed off by this common Order. However, for the sake of convenience, CC/243/2019 is treated as the lead case, and the facts enumerated hereinafter are extracted from this Complaint.

(3.) The factual background, in brief, is that the Complainant entered into multiple agreements with the Opposite Party No. 1, specifically the Agreement of Sale dtd. 25/1/2010, and both the Sale Deed and Construction Agreement dtd. 27/1/2010. These agreements were for the sale of an apartment to the Complainant by the Opposite Parties for a total consideration of Rs.87,76,301.00. Pursuant to these agreements, the Complainant was allotted Flat No.1934 in the Aliens Space Station-1 project and paid the full consideration amount through RTGS transfer. Subsequently, the Opposite Parties circulated a draft of an Amendment Agreement titled "Amendment to Agreement of Sale." Paragraph 1 of this Amendment stated that possession of Phase 1 would be provided within 36 months, with an additional grace period of 6 months calculated from 31/3/2017. However, the Complainant did not execute this Amendment Agreement due to the significant project delays that had already caused him substantial hardship. The Complainant sought clarification from the Opposite Parties regarding the delay in possession, which was initially scheduled for December 2011, but received no satisfactory response. On 17/12/2017, he issued a Legal Notice demanding a refund of the deposited amount with interest at 18% per annum, and an additional 6% penal interest after 60 days from the due dates, to be paid within two weeks of receipt of the Notice. In response, the Opposite Parties denied the Complainant's contentions and incorrectly asserted that the flats were ready for possession. Upon verification, the Complainant found that the flats were not in a ready condition and no Occupation Certificate had been issued. Aggrieved by the deficiency in service and unfair trade practices of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant filed the present complaint.