CAPT. GURTAJ SINGH SAHNI Vs. MANAGER, UNITECH LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainants in these matters booked one villa each with the opposite party in a project namely Espace Premier, Unitech Nirvana Country -2, Gurgaon. The possession was to be delivered within two years from the date of execution of the Buyers Agreement between the parties. Some of the complainants opted for subvention scheme under which a tripartite agreement was executed between the complainant, the opposite party and ICICI Bank and pursuant to the said agreement, about 95% of the sale consideration was received by the opposite party. The interest for the finance extended by the bank was to be borne by the opposite party for first 18 months and by the concerned buyer thereafter. The remaining complainants opted for construction linked payment plan and have paid varying amounts to the opposite party. The following are the dates of the Buyers Agreements, the sale consideration agreed between the parties, the amount paid to the opposite party and the date by which the possession was to be offered to those buyers:

(2.) The complaints have been opposed primarily on the grounds which this Commission has already rejected in a number of consumer complaints. It is inter -alia stated in the reply filed by the opposite party that the construction of the project was affected due to shortage of water since the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, vide order dated 16.07.2012, stopped the usage of underground water and directed use only of the treated water from the available Sewerage Treatment Plants. Since the availability of the sewerage treatment plants and water from such plants is very limited as compared to the requirement, it became difficult to maintain the timely schedule of construction. Relying upon clause 4(a) of the Buyers Agreement, it is claimed that the completion of the construction has been delayed on account of circumstances beyond the control of the opposite party. Relying upon clause 4(e), it is stated that in case the developer is unable to offer possession, it is liable either to offer an alternative property or to refund the amount received from the buyer alongwith interest @ 10% per annum. It is also claimed that as per clause 4(c)(iii) of the Buyers Agreement, in case of delay in delivering possession, the buyer is entitled to compensation @ Rs. 50/ - per sq. yd. per month for the period the possession is delayed. On merits, it is stated that structural work of the villa is on and the construction work is progressing.

(3.) It would thus be seen that admittedly, the opposite party had entered into Buyers Agreement with the complainants and promised to offer possession within two years from the date on which the said Buyers Agreements were executed. It is also not in dispute that the opposite party has not been able to complete the construction of the villa though more than 1 1/2 years have already expired from the date by which the last villa was to be handed over and more than three years have expired from the date by which the first villa was to be offered. Thus, the opposite party is at least 1 1/2 years behind schedule in each case and it is not known when it would be able to complete the construction.