RAVIKANT BHATT Vs. M/S. UNITECH LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IA/4924 to 4926/2016 (Directions) The learned counsel for the complainants submits that the opposite party despite knowing that Writ Petition which it had filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court had been dismissed before the written version came to be filed by it, concealed the aforesaid fact while filing its written version, thereby giving an impression that the said Writ Petition was still pending. The learned counsel for the opposite party, however, submits that it was an inadvertent omission not to refer to the dismissal of the Writ Petition while filing the written version. He has pointed out that the factum of the dismissal of the Writ Petition and filing of an appeal against the order dismissing the Writ Petition has been duly disclosed in the affidavit filed by the opposite party by way of evidence. Considering all the facts and circumstances including that the factum of the dismissal of the Writ Petition was disclosed in the affidavit filed by way of evidence, I do not deem it appropriate to initiate any action against the opposite party or its directors for the aforesaid omission. The applications are, therefore, dismissed. CC/1232/2015 The complainants who are husband and wife, booked a residential flat with the opposite party in a project namely Anthea Floors which the said OP was to develop in Sector 70 of Gurgaon. Vide allotment letter dated 17.8.2012, the opposite party allotted Flat No.8 in the aforesaid project to them, for a total consideration of Rs.1,30,78,667/-. The parties then entered into a Buyer's Agreement on 20.3.2013, incorporating their contractual obligations. As per clause 4(a)(i) of the Buyer's Agreement, the possession was to be delivered within 36 months of the execution of the Buyers Agreement, subject of course to force majeure circumstances. . The grievance of the complainants is that despite they having already paid a sum of Rs.40,39,622/- to the OP , the possession of the flat has not been offered to them. The complainants are, therefore, before this Commission seeking possession of the flat allotted to them or in the alternative refund of the amount paid by them, along with compensation in the form of interest @ 18% per annum.

(2.) The complaint has been resisted by the opposite party. It is alleged in the written version that the project Anthea Floors was a part of licensed plotted colony, namely, Nirvana Country III falling under License No.66 of 2011 dated 21.7.2011. Thus, the layout plan for the said colony had been approved on 21.7.2011. The opposite party applied for demarcation-cum-revised layout plan for Nirvana Country III on 19.9.2011. However, the said revised layout plan was not approved since Haryana Government was demanding charges, which the builders challenged before the Punjab and Haryana High Court by way of Writ Petition No.15537 of 2015. It is also stated in the affidavit filed by the opposite party by way of evidence that Govt. of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests had made it mandatory to obtain environmental clearance in respect of certain projects vide notification dated 14.9.2006 and the opposite party had submitted an application for obtaining the requisite environmental clearance in respect of Anthea Floors on 7.4.2012 but there was a delay on the part of the Government authorities in granting the requisite clearance which came to be issued only on 10.1.2014. It is also stated in the said affidavit that as per clause 4(e) of the Buyer's Agreement, in case the amount deposited by the complainants is to be refunded, the same would be refunded with simple interest @ 12% per annum and the prayer for refund with 18% interest is not maintainable.

(3.) As noted earlier, the opposite party had the requisite approval to the layout of the project in which the allotment was made to the complainants, the said approval having been granted way back on 21.7.2011. The opposite party submitted the revised layout plan on 19.9.2011. Despite a revised layout plan having already been submitted by that date, the opposite party did not disclose in the allotment letter issued to the complainant that they had submitted a revised layout plan for the project Anthea Floors on 19.9.2011 and the said revised plan was yet to be approved. If the opposite party wanted to develop the project only in accordance with the revised layout plan submitted on 19.9.2011, the aforesaid vital information ought to have been disclosed to the complainants at the time of booking of the flat. The Buyer's Agreement with the complainants was executed on 20.3.2013. Even in the said Buyer's Agreement, it was not disclosed that the opposite party did not intend to act upon the previously approved layout plan and had submitted a revised layout plan to the TCPO, which was yet to be approved. Had that been disclosed to the complainants, it is quite possible that they would have not have entered into the said agreement with the opposite party since, they could not have been sure that the opposite party which was yet to receive approval to the revised layout plan, would be able to deliver possession of the flat within 36 months from the date of the Buyer's Agreement.