IA/3515/2017 (For condonation of delay)

There is a delay of four days in filing the appeal.  For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned. The application stands disposed of.

FA/457/2017

          Issue notice.

          Ms. Priyanka Mathur Sardana, Advocate accepts notice for the complainant. 

          The complainants/respondents booked a residential flat with the appellant and an allotment letter was issued to her allotting Unit No.G-1/03 on Raksha Tower, in Eco Village-1, Greater Noida Extension.  The possession of the aforesaid Unit was to be given by June 2012.  Later on, the Unit allotted to the complainants/respondents was changed.  The case of the appellants is that it was done on the request of the complainants whereas the case of the complainant is that the change was made by the appellant of its own without any request from them.  Be that as it may, an allotment letter dated 31.05.2011 was issued to the complainants in respect of the changed Unit at Oxford Square, Eco Village-3, Greater Noida.  The possession of the said Unit as per the aforesaid allotment letter was to be delivered by June 2012.  Admittedly, the appellant failed to deliver possession of the aforesaid Unit to the complainants by June 2012.  A letter dated 03.05.2013 was issued by the appellant to the complainants/respondents stating therein that they had been forced to abandon the construction of the block in which allotment had been made to them and therefore, they were offering another Unit to them.  The learned counsel for the complainants states that in fact, the allotment was changed by the appellant as many as five times. 

2.      A letter dated 05.02.2016 was sent to the complainants raising a demand of Rs.2,23,241/-.  The learned counsel for the appellants want me to treat the said letter as the letter offering possession of the flat.  I however, find myself unable to accept the contention.  By no stretch of interpretation, this document can be considered as a letter offering possession of the flat to the complainants. 

3.      Since possession of the flat allotted to them had not been delivered, the complainants/respondents approached the concerned State Commission by way of a Consumer Complaint.  The complaint was resisted by the appellant, without raising any worthwhile defence in its reply.  The State Commission having held that the complainants cannot be compelled to accept possession in 2017 when the builder had promised to deliver possession by October 2011, directed refund of the amount paid by them alongwith interest @ 9% per annum.  Being aggrieved from the aforesaid directions, the appellant is before this Commission. 

4.      The learned counsel for the appellant states that they have already obtained the occupancy certificate of the flat which was lastly allotted to the complainants and are ready to deliver its possession to them.  I am in agreement with the State Commission that the complainants/respondents cannot be compelled to accept possession of the flat after an abnormal delay of 5-6 years from the date by which the appellant had promised to deliver possession.  Therefore, the complainants/respondents are well within their right in seeking refund of the amount which they had paid to the appellant company alongwith appropriate compensation in the form of interest.  The State Commission having directed refund of the principal amount alongwith interest @ 9% per annum, the aforesaid direction does not call for any interference nor the compensation awarded to the complainants/respondents can be said to be unfair or unreasonable.  I find no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.