PROMILA JOHNSON Vs. JASMINE BUILDMART PVT LTD & 2 ORS ; JASMINE BUILDMART PVT LTD ; AMBAWATTA BUILDWELL PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Mrs. Vasudha Gupta booked a residential flat bearing No. C-1202 admeasuring 5880 sq. ft. with the opposite party in a project namely, 'Krrish Provence Estate', which the opposite party was developing in Gurgaon. The aforesaid flat was purchased by the complainant from Mrs. Vasudha Gupta and the said transfer was duly approved by the opposite party, vide its endorsement dated 20.12.2011. The parties then entered into a Buyers Agreement dated 24.3.2012, incorporating their respective obligations, including the payment plan agreed between them. The following was the payment plan agreed between the parties: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_123_LAWS(NCD)1_2018_1.html</FRM>

(2.) The complaint has been resisted by the opposite party which has admitted the agreement with the complainant as well as the payment received from her. It is stated in the written version filed by the opposite party that around 20.3.2013, the complainant started defaulting in payment of construction-linked-installment and did not pay several installments, despite reminders sent to her. The allotment was therefore cancelled vide letter dated 29.7.2015.

(3.) As would be seen form the payment plan agreed between the parties, the complainant was required to pay the 7th installment on casting of 15th floor slab, 8th installment on 20th floor slab, 9th installment on casting of 24th floor slab and 10th installment on commencement of the internal finishing and flooring. It is an admitted position that the aforesaid installment have not been paid. The case of the complainant is that though the aforesaid installments were demanded, the work had not actually been done and therefore, she did not pay those installments. According to her she had visited the property and had found that the construction had not reached the appropriate level at the time the demand was raised. The demand payable on casting of 15th floor slab, 20th floor slab and 24th floor slab was payable on 20.3.2013, 5.7.2013 and 12.11.2013 respectively, whereas the demand on commencement of the internal finishing and flooring was payable on 14.01.2015. The opposite party has filed the affidavit of Mr. Suresh Chand Pandey, authorized signatory of the opposite party along with a certificate from Ms. Afsheen Khan, Architect, certifying therein that the slab work in respect of 15th floor, 20th floor and 24th floor commenced on 25.02.2013, 10.6.2013 and 01.10.2013 respectively. She has further certified that Part-2 of the casting of slabs was done on 15.3.2013, 27.6.2013 and 19.10.2013 in respect of 15th floor, 20th floor and 24th floor respectively. In view of the certificate of the Architect, it cannot be accepted that the construction had not reached the stipulated level by the time the complainant was called upon to pay the above referred installments. Though she claims that she had inspected the property and found that the construction had not reached the prescribed level. Admittedly, no letter was sent by her to the opposite party, stating therein that she was not making payment as the construction had not reached the level of casting of the 15th floor, 20th floor and 24th floor. In the absence of such a letter, the plea taken by the complainant cannot be accepted. This is more so, when this Architect had duly certified the actual date on which the slab work actually commenced and the date on which the slab was actually cast. It is therefore, evident that the complainant has defaulted in payment of the installments which were payable on casting of the 15th floor slab, 20th floor slab and 24th floor slab. The opposite party therefore was entitled to cancel the allotment made to the complainant, on this ground.