VIVEK AHUJA Vs. VIPUL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present first appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 08.02.2017 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi ('the State Commission') in Consumer Complaint no. 85 of 2017.

(2.) The facts of the case as per the appellant/complainant are that the appellant had booked a commercial space no. 201 measuring 97.73 sq meters in the Vipul World Commercial, Sector 48, Gurgaon, Haryana ('Unit') with the respondent/opposite party in March 2006. The appellant purchased the aforesaid unit from their predecessor in March 2008. Thereafter the appellants executed a buyer's agreement directly with the respondent wherein it was agreed that possession of the unit would be given within 24 months of the date of agreement. The total cost of the unit was initially Rs.50,45,508.00. It was a construction linked plan and the complete payment was made. It was alleged that the Service Taxes, VAT, Swatch Bharat Cess, Krishi Kalyan Cess were also charged by the respondent. It was alleged that the appellants in total had paid Rs.58,51,007/- inclusive of the aforesaid taxes. The construction of the project continued at a tardy pace and could not be completed till Nov. 2011. It was further alleged that from Nov. 2011 to June 16, various correspondence were exchanged between the parties and the respondent kept on extending the date of handing over of possession as the project was not completed. Ultimately, on 06.06.2016 the possession of the unit was offered to the appellants.

(3.) It was alleged that there was delay in handing over the possession to the appellants. In case of delay on the part of consumer, the respondent had charged 18% interest on delayed payment. There was deficiency in service on the part of respondent in not delivering the possession within the agreed time. Appellants are entitled for interest at the same rate on the payment made by them to the respondent for the period of delay in handing over the possession. It was alleged that the deficiency in service of the respondent is further evidenced from the fact that additional amounts in terms of service tax, VAT and other cesses had been wrongly collected from the appellants. The respondent has blatantly defaulted in its obligations to hand over the possession in terms of Buyer's Agreement. Further, the appellants were forced to sign documents giving up all their claims and were informed that the possession of the property would not be handed over without relinquishment of all claims against the respondent. The appellants have filed the present claim seeking directions to the respondents to pay amount under different heads as has been stated above.