SUBHASH MAHAJAN Vs. ASSOTECH REALTY PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant consumer complaint had been filed initially by nine complainants being NRIs. Name of complainant nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 were deleted vide orders on different dates. As per the amended memo, the present complaint is being pursued as a joint complaint by five complainants. As per the complaint, the complainants had booked various apartments in the housing project being developed by the opposite party called as Assotech Springfields, in Greater Noida. As per the terms of allotment-cum- agreement, the possession of the apartments was to be delivered within thirty months plus six months grace period from the date of commencement of the construction, i.e., dated 01.07.2006, hence, December 2009 was the tentative period for delivery of possession. It was alleged by the complainant that the opposite party has failed to complete the construction within the stipulated period and deliver the possession despite repeated reminders from the complainants. The opposite party kept on extending the time for delivery of possession. They further informed that they have increased the super-area but failed to furnish the proper measurement even on the demands of the complainants. Complainants vide letters dated 21.05.2009 and 25.05.2009 asked the opposite party to stop mis-representing the status of construction and delivery of possession and requested for an accurate information but no reply was received. Hence, Consumer Complaint no. 119 of 2009 was filed with the following prayers:

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the complainants. He informed that this joint complaint had been filed under section 12 (1) (a). Section 12 reads as under:

(3.) The Larger Bench comprising of three Members of this Commission in CC no. 97 of 2016 titled Ambrish Kumar Shukla and 21 Ors vs Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., vide order dated 07.10.2016 has stated as under: