PINKI SAINI Vs. IMPERIA STRUCTURE LTD. AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Consumer Complaints under section 21 (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have been filed by Ms. Pinki Saini (CC No. 1605 of 2017), Mr. Pradeep Kumar Dogra ( CC No. 1606 of 2017), Mr. Amit Puri and Ors. (CC No. 1607 of 2017), Mr. Sanjay Kumar (CC No. 1608 of 2017), Mr. Amarjit Singh (CC No. 1609/2017), Mr. Raj Kumar Phogat and Ors. (CC No. 1610/2017) and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar and Anr. (CC No. 1611/2017) respectively, seeking refund of the entire amount collected from them by the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as "the Developer") with interest @ 18% p.a. on the amount paid by them from the date of each deposit till realization together with compensation of 50,000/- and other reliefs.

(2.) For the sake of convenience CC bearing No. 1605/2017 has been taken up as a lead case.

(3.) The brief facts set out in the Complaint are that the Developer, after obtaining licence bearing No. 64 of 2011 dated 07.03.2011 from the Director, Town and Country Planning Haryana and Chandigarh, for setting up a group housing complex, launched a housing scheme known as the "The ESFERA" in the land acquired by them in Sector 37-C, Gurgaon, Haryana. It is stated that the project was widely advertised by the Developer and on seeing the advertisements, the Complainants approached the Developer and were assured that the entire project would be completed and possession would be delivered within 42 months. On the basis of the assurance given, the Complainant made an application on 12.01.2012 for Unit No. 704, 7th Floor, H Block admeasuring 1435 sq. ft. and also entered into a Builder Buyer Agreement on 12.09.2012 for a total sale consideration of 65,22,172/-. It is averred that the promised date of delivery was 11.09.2015 and in all the Complainant paid an amount of 60,51,027/- towards a major part of the sale consideration. It is stated that the Builder Buyer Agreement was already a prepared document and the Complainant was made to sign on the same though some of the Clauses were unreasonable and in favour of the Developer.