BRIG. RAJIV VIG Vs. IREO FIVERIVER PRIVATE LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainants, who are husband and wife, booked a residential apartment with the opposite party in a project namely 'Ireo Fiveriver', which the opposite party was to develop in Sector 3,4 and 4A Pinjore Kalka Urban Complex, District Panchkula Haryana. Apartment No. T-4-504 in the aforesaid project was offered to them vide allotment letter dated 22.9.2014, for a consideration of more than Rupees one crores. The parties then executed an Apartment Buyers Agreement on 26.6.2015, incorporating their respective obligations in respect of the aforesaid allotment. As per Clause 13.3 of the aforesaid agreement, the opposite party was to apply for the occupancy certificate with DTCP within 42 months from the date of approval of building plans and/or fulfillments of preconditions imposed thereunder. The opposite party was entitled to an additional period of 180 days after the expiry of the said commitment period, for the unforeseen delays beyond its reasonable control. Clause 13.4 of the agreement provided for payment of compensation to the allottee in case of failure of the opposite party to apply for the occupancy certificate by the end of the grace period. This is also the case of the complainants that at the time of booking, a particular tower was shown to him as tower 4 in the model presented before him, but when he visited site on 12.5.2016, he found that the tower, which had been shown to him as tower 4 was in fact, tower No. 9 and tower No. 4 in which the flat was allotted to him, was an altogether different tower. In any case, the possession of the flat has not been offered to the complainants, despite they having already paid Rs. 29,20,895/- to the opposite party. The complainants are therefore before this Commission, seeking refund of the aforesaid amount along with compensation etc.

(2.) The opposite party has contested the complaint on several grounds but has admitted the allotment made to the complainants as well as the payments received from them. The opposite party has taken a preliminary objection that the complainants are not consumers since they already owned a house in which they are living in Noida and that the flat in question was booked by them for speculation purposes. The opposite party has denied the allegations of the complainants as regards location of tower 4 and has claimed that the complainants had defaulted in payment of the installments, demanded on 11.2.2016. It is also alleged that the construction of the apartment was delayed on account of reasons beyond the control of the opposite party which had started the work at the site on 13.4.2015. It is alleged that despite the opposite party having already obtained Wildlife clearance on 30.10.2009, the competent authority while granting environmental clearance on 15.4.2014, imposed a fresh condition which required the opposite party to get clearance from the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife. The clearance from the NBWL according to the opposite party came only on 14.3.2015.

(3.) The following was the payment plan contained in the Apartment Buyers Agreement:-