AMIT GUPTA Vs. VATIKA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainants first booked a residential flat with the OP in a project namely 'Vatika India Next' in Gurgaon, vide application dated 02.11.2009. The possession of the said flat was to be delivered to them by mid-2013. Since the construction of the originally allotted unit in Vatika India Next, which was to be located in Sector 83 E of the project was not started, they were shifted by the OP to Sector 82-S of the said project. The construction of the residential flat even in Sector 82-S did not progress well. The complainants submitted an expression of interest/ application dated 20.12.2013 to the OP for allotment of a residential apartment of 1850 sq. ft. in Sector 82-A at the basic price of Rs.6220 per sq. ft. and made a payment of Rs.6,00,000/- along with the expression of interest. Vide allotment letter dated 30.10.2014, the OP allotted residential flat No.2401 in Tower A of the above referred project to the complainants, on the terms and conditions mentioned therein.

(2.) The OP sent the blank of Builder Buyer Agreement to the complainants on 16.4.2015. Some of the terms and conditions contained in the said agreement were not acceptable to the complainants. They therefore sent an email dated 26.8.2015 responding to the draft agreement, which was sent to them along with a letter dated 16.7.2015. Some of the objections raised by the complainants were as under:

(3.) On September 2, 2015, the OP responded to the email sent by the complainants. The reply to the Email of the complainants shows that on the date the said reply was sent, the license, which DTCP had granted for the development of the colony stood expired though the OP had applied for its renewal. The OP maintained the Clause, which provided for payment of additional service charges for conveyance deed as also the clauses with respect to the payment of the interest by the alloottee at a rate higher than the rate at which it was to be paid by the builder. The OP maintained that the said clauses could not be changed by the complainants. It was also clearly conveyed to the complainants that no amendment in the clauses contained in the agreement was possible. The OP also insisted on retaining the clause with respect to the payment of escalation charges. No response was given by the OP with respect to the calculation of the super built up area and payment of additional tax.