BIDHU SHEKHAR Vs. LAVASA CORPORATION LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant, booked a residential villa admeasuring 2107.8 sq. mtr. with the opposite party, namely, Lavasa Corporation Ltd. in a project which the opposite party was to develop in Village Dasave Taluka Mulshi in District Pune of Maharashtra. The built up area of the said villa was to be 4947 sq.ft. and the total sale consideration was agreed at Rs.1,09,22,250/- plus Rs.86,57,250. As per clause 9.1 of the agreement executed between the parties on 17.7.2010, the possession of the villa was to be delivered to the complainant within 24 months, unless prevented by force majeure events. Under clause 9.3 of the said agreement, the opposite party had a grace period of three months and in case of its failure to deliver possession even within the grace period, it was required to pay interest @ 12% p.a. or 2% above the SBI Cash Credit Rate at the relevant time, whichever be higher, on the principal amount deposited by the complainant, till the date of handing over the possession of the villa.

(2.) A show cause notice dated 25.11.2010 was issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest to the opposite party under section 5 of Environment Protection Act 1986, alleging violation of the provisions of environment impact assessment notification 1994 as amended in 2004 and 2006. Pending decision on the show-cause notice, the opposite party was required to maintain status quo ante which the High Court later clarified as status quo as on the date of notice. As a result, further construction/development came to be stopped. Vide communication dated 9.11.2011, Govt. of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest granted a conditional environmental clearances to the opposite party thereby enabling the resumption of the construction/development by the opposite party, subject to fulfilment of the said conditions. Thus, the construction/development remained stayed during the period from 25.11.2010 to 9.11.2011.

(3.) The grievance of the complainant is that even after the above-referred clearance given by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, the opposite party did not complete the construction and did not offer possession of the villa to him. The complainant, therefore has approached this Commission by way of this consumer complaint seeking the following relief:-