ANJALI AHUJA W/O. MANOJ AHUJA, R/O. 41 Vs. ADEL LANDMARKS LTD. FORMERLY KNOWN AS ERA LANDMARKS LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE AT: B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant entered into a Flat Buyer’s Agreement with the respondent on 1.10.2013 for purchase of a residential flat for a basic price of Rs.40,32,300.00. As per the said Flat Buyer’s Agreement, the respondent is required to deliver the possession of the flat to the appellant/complainant within 54 months therefrom. The said agreement also contains a grace period of 6 months. The complainant claims to have made a total payment of Rs.33,16,048.00 to the respondent till date and her grievance is that there is not much progress in construction of the building which stands only upto 5th/6th floor as was the position in March 2014. The appellant/complainant therefore approached the concerned State Commission by way of a consumer complaint containing the following prayers:-

(2.) The State Commission vide order dated 07.04.2016 dismissed the complaint on the ground that since the period stipulated in the agreement for delivery of the possession would expire only on 01.10.2008 the complaint was premature. Being aggrieved the appellant/complainant is before this Commission by way of this appeal.

(3.) It is not in dispute and is also borne out from the Buyer’s Agreement executed between the parties on 01.10.2013 that the possession was required to be delivered within 54 months from the date of the said agreement. The period of 54 months would expire on 01.04.2018. The said agreement also contains a grace period of 6 months. Taking the grace period into account the respondent can deliver the possession of the flat to the appellant/complainant on or before 01.10.2018. I am in complete agreement with the State Commission that having been filed in March 2016, the complaint was premature. Considering the time lag of more than 2 years between March 2016 and October 2018, neither the appellant/complainant can seek refund of the amount paid by her nor can she insist upon the delivery of the possession before that date. It is not as if it is impossible for anyone to construct the building within a period of more than two years which are still available to the respondent for completing the construction and handing over the possession to the complainant/appellant. Therefore, any grievance of the complainant/appellant, on the apprehension of delay, would be premature at this stage.