UTOPIA PROJECTS PVT LTD Vs. SHAHIN BI MULLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Goa in Complaint Case No. 09 of 2014, the Opposite Party preferred this Appeal.

(2.) The brief facts as set out in the Case are that the Complainant entered into an Agreement for Construction and Sale on 24.2.2012 with the Opposite Party for purchase of a Residential Unit No. W A-3 52 in 'Amar Prem' Project for a total consideration of Rs. 30,00,000/-, which was paid by the Complainant by way of two cheques of Rs. 15,00,000/- each dated 23.9.2011 and 24.2.2012 respectively. The Opposite Party/builder had executed an agreement dated 23.7.2010 with M/s. RPC Builders and Developers and obtained the construction licence and plan from the concerned authorities. As per clause 15 (a) of the Agreement, the Opposite Party had to hand over the possession on or before September, 2013, with a grace period of four months. The Complainant visited the site in August 2013 and observed that there was no development at all and even the foundation work was not done. Vexed with the situation, she got issued a legal notice on 29.12.2012 calling upon the Opposite Party to hand over possession of the said flat, complete in all respects and the builder replied vide letter dated 25.1.2013 but did not comply with respect to handing over the possession. Hence, the complaint seeking direction to the Opposite Party to pay compensation in the form of rent at Rs. 8,500/- per month for the delay in handing over the possession from the month of September, 2013; interest at the rate of 18% per annum on Rs. 30,00,000/-; compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- towards mental agony and loss of business; Rs. 50/- per sq. ft. per month for the entire period of delay as per clause 15 (c) of the agreement or in the alternative direction to the Opposite Party to refund Rs. 30,00,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of signing of the said Agreement till the date of realisation.

(3.) The Opposite party filed its written version admitting that it had entered into an Agreement with the Petitioner for Construction and Sale of the subject flat on 24.2.2012, for a total consideration of Rs. 30,00,000/-. The Opposite Party stated that the construction at the site could not be started due to disputes with the Contractor, who committed breach of the terms of Agreement entered into between them on 23.07.2010, whereby the OP had paid the Contractor in advance and the contractor was demanding extra payment for the properties. The completion date of the project was September, 2013 and hence it was not possible to hand over the possession of the residential flat by January, 2013, i.e. 7 months in advance and there was no question of the Opposite Party failing to comply with the legal notice dated 29.12.2012. The Opposite Party further stated that through their reply they had brought to the notice of the Complainant the factual position and that they were trying to employ a special firm to undertake standard block foundation for the construction and also assured the Complainant that the project had not been grounded. The Opposite Party also contended in its written version that delay due to force majeure conditions attracts clause 42(d) of the Agreement as the circumstances were beyond the control of the builder and also that there was no wilful delay in handing over the possession.