VRAJENDRA JOGJIVANDAS THAKKAR Vs. CCI PROJECTS (P) LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In C.C. No.976 of 2016, Vrajendra J. Thakkar, HUF booked a residential flat with the opposite party in a project, namely, 'White Spring Building' which the opposite party was to construct in Village Magathane, Dattapada Road, Borivali (East), Mumbai, for a consideration of Rs.9038850/- and flat No.6A in the proposed building was allotted to him. The parties then entered into an agreement dated 30.10.2012, incorporating their respective obligations in respect of the aforesaid transaction The allotment was later transferred by the HUF to the mother of the complainant who thereafter gifted the same to the complainant. In terms of Clause 17 of the agreement dated 30.10.2012, the possession was to be delivered by August, 2014 though the date for delivery of possession was to automatically stand extended in the event of any of the contingencies specified in the said Clause. The complainant and/or his predecessor-in-interest made payment of a sum of Rs.8586912/- to the opposite party but the possession of the flat was not delivered to him. He, therefore, approached this Commission by way of this consumer complaint, seeking the following reliefs:-

(2.) In C.C. No.975 of 2016, Smt. Hemali Vrajendra Thakkar, wife of the complainant booked a residential flat with the opposite party in the same project and flat No.6B was allotted to her for the same consideration of Rs.9038850/-. She also entered into an agreement dated 30.10.2012 with the opposite party and the said agreement contained clauses identical clauses contained in the agreement subject matter of CC No. 976 of 2016. Later on, the aforesaid allotment was transferred by the wife of the complainant to her mother-in-law, namely, Kundanben Jagjivandar Thakkar, who in turn gifted the same to the complainant. Since the possession of the above referred flat was not offered to him, the complainant is before this Commission with identical prayers.

(3.) The complaint has been resisted by the opposite party which has admitted the bookings made by the complainant and his wife as well as the execution of the agreements with them on 30.10.2012. It has interalia been stated in the written version filed by the opposite party that since the possession of the flats was delayed, the opposite party had made an unconditional offer to refund the entire amount received from the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum in terms of Clause 18 of the agreement dated 30.10.2012 . It is further alleged in the written version filed by the opposite party that since the possession was delayed for the reasons squarely covered in Clause 17 of the agreement dated 30.10.2012, the delay in offering the possession was justified. It is alleged that after the opposite party had applied for the Commencement Certificate for the upper habitable floors, the same was not processed since changes in Development Control Rules were in the offing. The notification amending Development Control Rules came to be issued only in January, 2012 and thereafter, the Commencement Certificate was approved in March 2012, where upon the opposite party could start the work in September/October, 2012. It is also alleged that the work was intermittently delayed due to the off and on Government restrictions on procurement of sand on account of environmental concerns and on account of the contractor having left the site when the work was stopped on account of delay due to amendment of the Development Control Regulations.