1.      Heard Mr. Salil Paul, Advocate, for the complainants and Mr. Shivkant Arora, Advocate, for the opposite parties. 

2.      Above complaint has been filed for directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.6917756.33/-, with interest @18% per annum from the date of respective deposit till the date of realization and any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts of the case.

3.      The complainants stated that Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. and Samyak Projects Pvt. Ltd. were the companies, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of development and construction of group housing project. Samyak Projects Pvt. Ltd. was owner of the project land. By an agreement between the opposite parties, development work of the group housing project, was given to Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., who launched the project “Ansal Heights-86”, at Sector 86, Gurgaon, in 2011. On coming to know about the aforesaid project, complainants booked a flat and deposited the booking amount on 30.11.2011. Opposite party-1 allotted Flat No. C-1004, admeasuring 1895 sq.ft., basic price Rs.6434041.75/- to the complainants and executed Flat Buyer’s Agreement dated 13.08.2012, in their favour. As per Clause 31 of the agreement, the possession had 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 deposited total amount of Rs.6917756.33/- up to 11.07.2017. As opposite party-1 took instalments at different level of the construction, therefore, opposite party-1 had to deliver possession upto February, 2016 and after including grace period of six months upto August, 2016 but the construction was neither completed nor possession was offered. This complaint has been filed on 30.09.2019.

4.      Opposite party-1 filed written reply on 05.12.2019, in which, the material facts have not been disputed. Opposite party-1 stated that the construction was completed in the year 2017 and opposite party-1 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, opposite party-1 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 Shilpa Dulani on 13.03.2020 and documentary evidence. Opposite party-1 filed Affidavit of Evidence of Vaibhav Chaudhary and documentary evidence. The complainants have filed short synopsis.

6.      We have considered the arguments of counsel for the parties and examined the record. It is not in dispute that opposite party-1 allotted the flat to the complainants in 2012. The complainants deposited more than basic price but possession was unreasonably delayed. It has been stated by opposite party-1 that some of the payments were made in the heads service tax and other statutory charges etc. and these payments have to be excluded from the total payment made by the complainants. But these payments are attached to property, which will remain with the opposite party, as such we do not find any reason to exclude these payments from the total payments of the complainants. 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. Opposite party-1 is directed to refund the entire amount deposited by the complainants 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.