SANJAY KUMAR AIREN AND ANOTHER 12, RANADEY, COMPOUND, OLD PALASIA, INDORE-452001 (M.P.) Vs. SAHARA PRIME CITY LIMITED AND ANOTHER SAHARA INDIA CENTRE 2, KAPOORTHALA COMPLEX, ALIGANJ, LUCKNOW, UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainants who are husband and wife, booked a residential bungalow with the OP in a project namely Sahara City Homes (now known as Sahara Prime City) for a total consideration of Rs.1,11,00,000.00. Vide allotment letter dated 28.05.2008, Unit No. S4/17 was allotted to the complainants. The possession was proposed to be delivered within 38 months from the date of allotment meaning thereby that it was to be delivered by 28.07.2011. The complainants have already paid a sum of Rs.1,11,00,000.00 to the OP. However, possession of the said house has not been delivered to them. Being aggrieved, they are before this Commission seeking refund of the amount paid by them along with compensation etc.

(2.) The complaint has been resisted by the OP which has admitted the allotment made to the complainants as well as the payment alleged by them. It has been alleged in the reply filed by the OP that the construction of the bungalows was delayed on account of certain clearances having not been given and the unit in question was ready for being handed over, on the date the reply was filed, but in view of the direction of the Honourable Supreme Court dated 21.11.2013, the OP was unable to hand over the said unit to the complainants. The learned counsel for the OP states that the aforesaid order has since been clarified by the Honourable Supreme Court and therefore, they are in a position to hand over possession of bungalow in question to the complainant.

(3.) A perusal of the allotment dated 28.05.2008 would show that the possession was to be delivered within 38 months from the date of the allotment, meaning thereby that the possession ought to have been delivered by 28.07.2011. This complaint came to be filed on 01.09.2015. Thus, the OP was not able to give possession of the bungalow booked by the complainants for more than four years after the date committed by them for delivering its possession. Though a bald averment has been made that there was delay in obtaining the requisite clearances, there is no evidence to substantiate the said allegations. There is no evidence as to on which date the statutory clearances were applied and on which date, the same were granted. It is also not known what were the reasons for the statutory clearances not being granted in time. If the delay in grant of statutory clearances occurred on account of deficiencies or short-comings on the part of the OP, it cannot take any advantage of such delays. Therefore, I find no justification for the abnormal delay of more than four years in completing the construction of the bungalow booked by the complainants.