COL RAJYAVARDHAN SINGH RATHORE Vs. PARSVNATH DEVELOPERSLTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opposite party allotted a flat bearing no. D4-701 in a project namely Parsvnath Exotica, which it was developing in Sector-53 of Gurgaon to Ridco Logistics Pvt. Ltd. The complainant purchased the aforesaid apartment from Ridco Logistics Pvt. Ltd. and the transfer was approved by the opposite party vide endorsement dated 04.11.2006. The total sale consideration for the flat was agreed at Rs. 74,95,675/-. Clause 10(a) of the Flat Buyers Agreement reads as under:-

(2.) The complaint has been resisted by the opposite party on several grounds. It is denied that the opposite party deliberately delayed the construction of the apartment and it is claimed that the recession has hit the Indian economy over past two years and real estate sector is one of the worst hit sector as a result of the said slow down. It is further alleged that in terms of clause 10(c) of the Flat Buyers Agreement, in case of delay, the flat buyer is entitled only to the payment of holding charges calculated @ Rs. 10 per sq. ft. of the super area of the flat per month, for the delay.

(3.) A perusal of the clause 10(a) of the Flat Buyers Agreement would show that slow-down in the economy is not one of the grounds which would justify the delay in completion of the construction. The agreement between the parties refers only to restrictions/restraints from any Court/Authority, non-availability of building material, dispute with contractors/ work force etc. and circumstances beyond the control of the developers as the grounds which could justify the delay in completion of the construction. However, in the present case there is no evidence or even allegation of the opposite party having been constrained, on account of such a reason, in carrying out or completing the construction of the flat sold to the complainant. There is no evidence of non-availability of the building material or the opposite party having dispute with any contractor/work force deployed at the site of construction. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the delay in completion of the project in which flat was purchased by the complainant was wholly unjustified. Consequently, the opposite party must necessarily compensate the complainant on account of the aforesaid unjustified delay in completion of the apartment.