DEVANSHU BHATT Vs. RAHEJA DEVELOPERS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Consumer Complaint has been filed under Sec. 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") against the Opposite Party seeking to direct the OP:-

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as per the complainants, are that Mr. Devanshu Bhatt and Mrs. Ruchi Gupta have booked Flat No. C-161 on the 16th floor, measuring 1714.67 sq. ft in "Raheja Revanta", Sector-78, Gurugram, developed by M/s Raheja Developers Ltd. for a total cost of Rs.1,36,89,449..00 Sale Agreement was executed between the parties on 27/12/2012. Possession was promised within 48 months + 6 months grace period from the execution date i.e. by mid-2017. Payment plan was as per the Construction Linked Plan. They paid Rs.1,29,64,869.00 (95% of the total cost), availing loan of Rs.1,06,10,000.00 from ICICI Bank for meeting payment demands. The Opposite Party (OP) builder failed to deliver possession within the timeline, citing frivolous reasons such as presence of high-tension lines and continued to issue false and frivolous demand notices for full payment, despite non-completion of the project. The OP published advertisements promising timely possession to attract buyers, without requisite approvals in place. The delay was due to lack of timely clearances. Clauses in the Agreement granting unfettered discretion to the developer abused, causing financial and emotional distress. High-Tension lines cited as a reason for delays, although they were present before the project's initiation. They sent a legal notice on 17/7/2017 demanding the refund of Rs.1,29,64,869.00 along with interest to the OP due to all the illegal acts. But, the OP did not give any reply. Being aggrieved, they filed a consumer complainant seeking refund of Rs.1,29,64,869.00 with 18% interest from the date of each instalment deposit until realization along with compensation of Rs.10,00,000.00 for unfair trade practices and deficiency in service and Litigation costs of Rs.5,00,000.00.

(3.) This complaint was contested by the OP by filing a written version and the preliminary objections claimed that the complainants are not "consumers" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the flat was booked as an investment for commercial purposes. The agreement contained an arbitration clause, barring the jurisdiction of the consumer forum. The claim was averred to be time-barred under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The OP emphasized that the agreement's terms were mutually agreed upon, and the complainants cannot challenge them now. The OP further averred that the reliefs sought exceeded the forum's jurisdiction under Sec. 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. On merits, the OP acknowledged the delay but attributed it to unavoidable circumstances such as High-Tension lines shifting and factors beyond their control. They asserted that the revised schedule anticipated completion by 2018. The OP denied allegations of illegal or premature demands and maintained that all demands were raised per the agreement. The construction was reportedly 75% complete, with significant progress made up to the 48th floor. The OP highlighted that the complainants had taken a loan from ICICI Bank, and the unit was under a mortgage. They prayed that the complaint be dismissed.