AMIT GARG Vs. UNITECH LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainants in CC No. 143 of 2015 namely Sh. Amit Garg and Smt. Shipra Agarwal were allotted a residential flat by the opposite party in a project namely Harmony which the opposite party is developing in Sector-50 of Gurgaon. The total sale consideration for the said apartment was fixed at Rs. 15026500/- out of which, Rs. 14436241/- already stand paid to the opposite party. The parties entered into a Buyer's Agreement dated 21.09.2010 and as per the said agreement, the possession of the apartment was to be delivered by 30.06.2011, subject to force majeure circumstances.

(2.) The complaints have been resisted by the opposite party primarily on the grounds which this Commission has repeatedly rejected in a number of decisions including CC No. 427 of 2014 Satish Kumar Pandey & Anr. Vs. Unitech Ltd. and connected matters, decided on 08-06-2015 and CC No. 347 of 2014 Swarn Talwar & Ors. Vs. Unitech Ltd., and connected matters decided on 14.08.2015. It is claimed in the reply that in case of any delay in completion of the apartment, for the reasons beyond the control of the developer, he is entitled to an extension of time for delivery of the possession. It is stated that in case of delay the buyer is entitled only to compensation @ Rs. 5 per sq. ft. per month of the super area as stipulated in the Buyer's Agreement. It is also alleged that Punjab & Haryana High Court had vide order dated 16.07.2012, restrained the usage of ground water for construction purposes and directed use of water from available sewage treatment plants, availability from which was very limited in comparison to the requirement.

(3.) In Satish Kumar Pandey , this Commission inter-alia observed and held as under: