SENIOR EXECUTIVE (MARKETING & SALES), TATA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED 12TH FLOOR, TIMES TOWER KAMALA HILLS COMPOUND SENAPATI BAPAT MARG LOWER PAREL MUMBAI Vs. HUSSAINEE ALIHUSSAIN LILAMWALA HABIB PARK 1ST FLOOR, FLAT NO. 12, CLARE ROAD, BYCULLA MUMBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Tata Housing Development Company Ltd. developed a township at Village Betegaon, Boisar, Taluka-Palghar in District Thane of Maharashtra. The complainant in RP No. 1169 of 2016 booked two residential flats in the aforesaid township whereas the complainant in RP No. 1988 of 2016 booked one residential flat in that township. As per clause 18 of the agreement executed between the parties, the possession was to be delivered by 31.12.2011. The petitioner however, could not offer possession within the time stipulated in the agreement and there was delay of about 15 months in offering possession. While giving possession to the complainants, the petitioner company recovered Rs. 50,000.00 as the membership fee for the club house which was not functional at the time the possession was offered. The cost of the flat agreed to be paid by the complainant included the cost of the earmarked parking space which it has provided to the complainants in the above referred township. The petitioner company before giving possession, had also recovered the water and electricity - supply and connection charges from the complainants. The complainant in RP No. 1169 of 2016 is aggrieved from i) Delay in offering possession of the flats; ii) recovery of charges for the earmarked parking spaces; iii) recovery of Rs. 60300.00 towards water and electricity - supply and connection charges and iv) the delay in making the club house functional despite club charges having been recovered from him. The complainant in RP No. 1988 of 2016 is aggrieved only from the recovery of charges for the parking space earmarked for him.

(2.) The District Forum as well as the State Commission have upheld the claims of the complainants on all the above referred counts. There was also a claim in respect of the maintenance charges but the said claim was rejected. Being aggrieved from the orders passed by the Fora below, the petitioner company is before this Commission by way of these revision petitions.

(3.) The first question which arises for consideration in RP No. 1169 of 2016 is as to whether the petitioner company is liable to pay any compensation to the complainant for the delay in offering possession of the flat booked by him and if so, what should be the extent of the said compensation. Clause 13 of the Buyers Agreement reads as under: