1.       Heard Mr. Deepak Sabharwal, Advocate for the complainants and Mr. Shivkant Arora, Advocate for the opposite party.

2.       Above complaint has been filed for directing the opposite party  to refund the amount of Rs.7039824/- and Rs.159692/- with interest@ 24% per annum from the date of respective deposit till the date of payment, Rs.2000000/- as the compensation for mental agony and harassment, Rs.150000/- as cost of the litigation, future interest @ 24% compounded quarterly on entire amount till the date of realisation and any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3.       The complainants stated that Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. was a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of development and construction of group housing project. In the year 2011, the opposite party has launched a project in the name of “Ansal Heights -86”, at Sector 86, Gurgaon. On coming to know about the aforesaid project, Rajesh Kumar Yadav and Smt. Geeta Yadav (Predecessor-in-interest of the complainants) booked a flat and deposited the booking amount on 30.11.2011. The opposite party allotted flat No.B-503, admeasuring 1895 sq.ft., basic price Rs.6434042/- and executed Flat Buyer’s Agreement dated 06.09.2012, in their favour.  Rajesh Kumar Yadav and Smt. Geeta Yadav transferred the aforesaid flat to the complainants on 06.05.2013. The transfer was duly endorsed by the opposite party on 11.06.2013, after taking transfer charges of Rs.159692/-, in Flat Buyer’s Agreement dated 06.09.2012. Thereafter the opposite party issued allotment letter to the complainants on 19.06.2013.  As per Clause 31 of the agreement, the possession has to be delivered within 42 months from the date of execution of the agreement or from the date of obtaining all the required sanctions and approvals necessary for construction with grace period of six months. The payment plan as per agreement was “Construction Linked Payment Plan”. The complainants and their predecessor deposited total amount of Rs.7039824/- has been deposited up to 14.12.2015. Transfer charges of Rs.159692/- has also been deposited at the time of transfer in June, 2013.  As the opposite party has taken instalments at different level of the construction, therefore, the opposite party had to deliver possession up to March, 2016 and after including grace period of six months upto September, 2016 but the construction was neither completed nor possession was delivered. The complainants gave a notice dated 30.11.2017 for refund of the money. The opposite party did not respond the notice. Then this complaint has been filed on 22.02.2018.

4.       The opposite party filed written reply on 09.08.2018, in which, the facts relating to booking of the flat to the predecessor of the complainants as well as the transfer of the flat in the name of the complainants and endorsement  by the opposite party and payment made by the predecessor as well as to the complainants have not been disputed. The opposite party stated that the construction was completed in the year 2017 and the opposite party has applied for issuance of occupation certificate, but the occupation certificate has not been issued and it has been unreasonably delayed by the statutory authority.  Therefore, the opposite party is entitled to extension of period for which the occupation certificate has been delayed by the statutory authority.

5.       The complainants filed rejoinder reply and affidavit of evidence of Anjana Mittal, complainant-1 and Runjun Mittal, complainant-2 on 15.03.2019. Both the complainants filed affidavit of evidence and admission/ denial of documents. The opposite party filed affidavit of evidence of Vaibhav Chaudhry and documentary evidence. Both the parties have filed their short synopsis.

6.       We have considered the arguments of counsel for the parties and examined the record.  It is not in dispute that the opposite party booked the flat in favour of Rajesh Kumar Yadav and Geeta Yadav on 30.11.2011.  Thereafter, the complainants get the flat transferred from original allottee on 06.05.2013 and the transfer has been duly endorsed by the opposite party in the Flat Buyer Agreement as well as other records. So far as the payment made by the complainants are concerned, it has been stated by the opposite party that some of the payment made in the heads transfer of administrative charges as well as service tax. These payments have to be excluded towards the total payment made by the complainants. But these payments are attached to property, which will remain with the opposite party, we do not find any reason to exclude these payments from the total payments made by the complainants and their predecessors. So far as the possession is concerned, it is admitted that till today, occupation certificate has not been issued.  As such, the opposite party is not in a position to offer the possession under the law. In these circumstances, the complainant cannot be made to wait for unlimited period of time for possession. 

ORDER

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed with cost of Rs.50000/-.  The opposite party is directed to refund the entire amount deposited by the complainants including the amount paid by their predecessors along with interest @9% per annum from the date of respective deposit till the date of payment, within a period of two months from the date of this judgment.