TARUN KUMAR GHAI Vs. MALIBU ESTATE PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Maligo Estate Pvt. Ltd. had floated a scheme by purchasing land in village Tikri, Fatehpur Tehsil, District Gurgaon, Haryana with a view to develop a residential colony to be known as 'malibu Towne' under the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Area Act, 1975 in which residential multi-storeyed housing complex known as 'malibu Condominiums' was also to be built. Complainant Tarun Kumar Ghai entered into two agreements with the opposite parties and accordingly the complainant was allotted apartment No. 301 in Tower No. 6 having super area 150. 04 sq metres at the rate of Rs. 13,939 per s. m. Total price of flat was estimated at Rs. 22,43,478. First instalment was paid on 17. 2. 1995. The complainant had paid Rs. 21,22,347 to the opposite party leaving balance sum of Rs. 1,20,597 to be paid at the time of possession of flat. As per agreement C-2 the complainant took a second flat in the same tower with apartment No. 503 having super area of 147. 40 s. m. at the same rate with the total price of flat estimated at Rs. 21,23,444. The complainant had already paid Rs. 20,10,392 leaving balance sum of Rs. 1,13,003 to be paid at the time of possession of flat.

(2.) AS per agreement, the opposite parties were to deliver the apartment to the complainant within three and a half years from the date of booking. As apartment was booked in February, 1995 it was to be given latest by August, 1998. Complainant had visited the site and had come to know that opposite parties have not done any development work and have not constructed any flats on the proposed site. Complainant sent several communications insisting that he should be allotted the flats booked by him. In reply the opposite parties stated that they were offering some other flats in some other tower to the complainant which he had not booked. In this connection complainant pointed that he booked the flats after seeing the sites and had paid a sum of Rs. 80,806 as preferential location charges. Complainant was not interested to swap the flats with any other flats. Complainant has alleged in paras 10 to 13 of his complaint that the acts of the builder amount to deficiency in service and also to be an unfair trade practice falling under Clauses (1) to (5) of 36a of the MRTP Act, 1969, as made applicable to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by Section 2 (1) (r) of the said Act.

(3.) AS the opposite parties did not hand over possession of the booked flats he approached the National Commission with the following prayers: