JASVINDER KAUR W/O. SH. PRITPAL SINGH, R/O. V Vs. PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR, 6TH FLOOR, ARUNACHAL BUILDING, 19, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 13.1.2007, the complainant booked a penthouse admeasuring 2737 Sq.ft. with the opposite party in a building which the OP was proposing to construct at Subhash Nagar, New Delhi, making part payment of Rs. 2342786.47/- on different dates, the first being the payment of Rs. 5 lakhs on 15.1.2007 followed by payment of Rs. 15 lakhs on 27.2.2007 and payment of Rs. 342786/- on 27.6.2008. According to the complainant though she was assured that the project would be sanctioned soon and the constructions would start within a month or so but the opposite party failed to get the plans sanctioned and start the construction. On seeking information under Right to Information Act from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the complainant learnt that no building plan in respect of the aforesaid project had been sanctioned. This is also the case of the complainant that the building plan submitted by the competent authority vide order dated 20.8.2014 and the said building is under the process of sealing. In the meanwhile, the allotment made to the complainant has been cancelled by the OP vide letter dated 18.4.2013. The complainant is, therefore, before this Commission with the following prayers:-

(2.) The complaint has been contested by the OP which has taken a preliminary objection that since an earlier complaint filed by this very complainant being Complaint No.126 of 2013 was dismissed by the State Commission on 20.12.2013, a fresh complaint before this Commission is hit by Order 2, Rule 2 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure and the complaint is also barred by limitation. The OP has also claimed that the complainant is bad for non-joinder of Parsvnath Relcon Pvt. Ltd., the Special Purpose Vehicle formed for this project. On merits, it is alleged that the land for the project in question was allotted to the OP by Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. on lease of 90 years commencing 17.4.2006. The building plans were submitted to MCD for approval but MCD was not ready to approve the same for want of NOC from the DDA as the land had been allotted to the DMRC for MRTS project and not for residential purposes. It is further alleged that the layout plans were approved by MCD subject to the OP obtaining NOC from DDA before release of the building plans. Eventually, the DMRC issued an NOC dated 9.7.2009 to MCD in terms of an order of Ministry of Urban Development on 30.3.2009 asking MCD to approve the building plan without awaiting NOC from DDA. The building plans were then approved by MCD on 22.7.2010. In the meanwhile, a Notification was issued by the Government stipulating therein that 15% FAR pertaining to EWS units is not to be counted in permissible FAR. The OP, therefore, submitted a revised building plan to MCD. However, MCD withheld the building plans for want of NOC from DDA. It is also alleged that the OP had set up a Special Purpose Vehicle with its subsidiary, namely, Parsvnath Relcon Pvt. Ltd., and assigned the development rights of this project to the aforesaid SPV. It is alleged that construction is likely to be completed within 30 months of its commencement with a grace period of six months, once the building plans and all other requisite approvals are received. It is also alleged by the OP that as per Constriction Linked Payment Plan, the complainant was required to pay a sum of Rs. 4685572.00 by 14.2.2007 but she has failed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 4185572.94.00 and has also not returned the Flat Buyer Agreement sent to her. It is also alleged that since the complainant failed to make the balance payment despite several letters sent to her, the allotment made to her was cancelled vide letter dated 18.4.2013.

(3.) The first question which arises for consideration is as to whether this complaint is barred on account of the previous complaints filed by the complainants before the State Commission having been dismissed. A perusal of the order of the State Commission dated 1.2.2013 would show that the first complaint being C-2009/353 was dismissed as withdrawn after noticing that the prayer made in the complaint pertained only to Rs. 10 lakhs. A perusal of the order dated 20.12.2013 would show that the second complaint instituted before the State Commission was dismissed on the ground that it was barred under Order 2, Rule 2 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure.