DEEPANSHU SAINI Vs. S S GROUP PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This consumer complaint has been filed by the complainants Deepanshu Saini & anr. against the opposite parties M/s. S.S.Group Private Limited & Ors.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 12.04.2012, vide application dated 12.04.2012, the complainants applied for allotment of a flat admeasuring super area of 2000 square feet in the said project Almeria and opted for construction linked plan. On 20.4.2012, the complainants made payment of Rs.10,50,000/- vide cheque no.151550 dated 17.04.2012 drawn on HSBC Bank which was duly acknowledged vide receipt dated 20.04.2012. On 11.05.2012, the complainants were allotted Unit No.7B-SF (Second Floor), 3 BHK + S (Servant Room) having an approximate Super Area of 2,000 sq.ft. in BLD-7B of the said project Almeria vide allotment letter dated 11.05.2012 for a total consideration of Rs.1,09,70,000/- as per payment plan attached therewith. An agreement was executed between the parties herein vide Flat Buyer s Agreement dated 30.05.2012. In terms of the Clause 8 of the said agreement, the opposite party was under obligation to complete the project and handover the possession of the aforesaid flat within 36 months from the date of execution of the said agreement which expired on 30.05.2015. The complainants had obtained home loan from India Bulls Housing Finance Limited for making payments for purchase of the aforesaid flat and in that regard had to execute a tripartite agreement dated 19.06.2012. In between 2012 -2016, the complainants made payments of Rs.96,28,511/- (ninety six lakhs twenty eight thousand five hundred eleven only) to the opposite parties towards the cost of the aforesaid flat. As per Flat Buyers Agreement, the opposite parties were under an obligation to deliver the possession of the completed flat to the complainants on or before 30.05.2015. However, the opposite parties failed to deliver the possession of the flat in terms of their undertaking. As the complainants had planned to leave the rented accommodation upon getting possession of the aforesaid flat, the complainants had to bear the additional burden of paying rent even after 30.05.2015 as the opposite parties failed to deliver the possession of the aforesaid flat by that time. This totally disturbed the financial planning of the complainants and their other commitments failed solely due to this reason. The complainants had to face proceedings U/s 25 of the Payment & Settlement Systems Act, 2007 for committing default in making payment of EMIs to the Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited. The complainants suffered untold mental agony, humiliation and pains to defend the proceedings exclusively due to the failure of the opposite parties to fulfill their undertaking of timely delivery of possession of completed flat to the complainants. On 03.08.2016, the complainants realized that the opposite parties had no intention to fulfil their commitments related to the project particularly in view of the existing condition of the unit in question. Therefore, the complainants requested the opposite parties to refund the entire deposited amount with interest vide their e-mail dated 03.08.2016. On 03.11.2016, in the circumstances, the complainants were constrained to terminate the agreement with the opposite parties. This was done by the complainants through legal notice dated 03.11.2016. On 10.12.2016, instead of complying with the legal notice or even replying it, the opposite parties made a further demand of Rs.11,64,915/- from the complainants. This amounted to act of gross deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties by filing the reply to the complaint. It has been stated that the building is ready and the opposite parties are ready to handover the possession and therefore, the complainants cannot demand the refund of the total amount as the same has been invested in the building. The opposite parties are ready to give the compensation for the delayed possession as per the agreement. Based on these assertions, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.