1.      Heard Ms. Geeta Luthra, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Ms. Shivani Luthra Lohiya, Advocate, for the complainants and Mr. Pinaki Misra, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Pravin Bahadur, Advocate, for the opposite party.

2.      Smt. Swarnpreet Kaur and Shivneet Singh have filed above complaint, for directing the opposite party to (i) complete the project in all respect, as per specifications, within stipulated period and handover possession of the unit allotted to them; (ii) declare the demands of increased area, enhanced EDC/IDC, Bulk Power Supply, Other costs, Escalation charges, Service tax, as shown in their statement of Account as on 27.01.2017, as illegal; (iii) declare “part occupation certificate” issued in the name of Naja Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd., as illegal; (iv) declare the action of the opposite party, insisting them to execute an undertaking for not claiming delay compensation, as illegal; (v) declare the practice of including area of club building in ‘super area’ of the buyers and retaining its ownership, as unfair trade practice; (vi) declare car parking charges, as illegal; (vii) declare the demands, which are yet not crystallized and due, as illegal; (viii) declare the action of the opposite party, in forcing the buyers to join the condominium formed by them, as illegal and unfair trade practice; (ix) to pay delay compensation in the form of interest @18% per annum on their deposit as the opposite party was charging interest @18% per annum, on delayed payment of instalments under clause-2.c of the agreement; (x) pay Rs.one crore, as compensation for mental agony, harassment and deficiency in service; (xi) pay pendent-lite and future interest @18% per annum; (xii) grant exemplary cost and the costs of litigation; and (xiii) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3.      The complainants stated that DLF New Gurgaon Homes Developers Private Limited (the opposite party) was a company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of development and construction of group housing project. The opposite party launched a group housing project in the name of “The Primus DLF Garden City” at Sector-82-A, Gurgaon, in the year 2012 and made wide publicity of its facilities and amenities, like as multi-purpose hall with banqueting facilities, card room, snooker room, Aerobic/Yoga centre, gymnasium with modern equipment, steam & sauna, squash court, tennis courts, mini home theatre/A.V. room, shops, swimming pool with change rooms, separate kids pool etc. Believing upon the representations of the opposite party, the complainants booked a flat and deposited booking amount of Rs.751770/- on 31.08.2012. The opposite party allotted Apartment No.PMC024 on 06.09.2012 and executed Apartment Buyer’s Agreement on 24.12.2012, in which, basic price of Rs.12143250/- was mentioned. The complainants opted for “down payment plan”, under which, Rs.1442474/- was given as down payment rebate. The complainants deposited Rs.11593350/- on 15.10.2012 and balance amount of Rs.919500/- was payable on offer of possession. Clause 11(a) of the agreement provides 42 months period from the date of the application for delivery of possession, which period expired on 28.02.2016. Supplying final statement of account, vide letter dated 27.01.2017, the opposite party demanded Rs.1651245.68 and asked to complete documentation for delivery of possession. Statement of account depicts demands of Rs.128250/- for increase of 19 sq.ft. area, Rs.413195/- as other costs, Rs.118594/- as contingency deposit, Rs.12377/- as gas pipe charges, Rs.119443/- as escalation charges, Rs.269850 as “interest bearing maintenance security” and Rs.495880/- as service tax. In documentation, the opposite party sought for an indemnity-cum-undertaking from the complainants to the effect that they had no objection against nomination of maintenance agency by the opposite party and they would have no claim of any nature against the opposite party. On inquiry, the opposite party, informed that “Primus Resident Condominium Association” has been formed, in which 7 previous employees of the opposite party were members although none of them were resident in this project. After receipt of the letter dated 27.01.2017, the GPA of the complainants visited the site and found that the project was incomplete, inasmuch as exterior and interiors of the towers, roads, gardens, swimming pool, club, tennis court, common area and parking were still to be constructed. The GPA of the complainants and other buyers got these deficiencies noticed to the representative of the opposite party, who informed that “occupation certificate” was issued on 07.10.2016. The GPA of the complainants, thereafter, visited number of times to the site but did not find completion of above things. One of the buyer obtained copy of “occupation certificate” from the office of District Town Planner, Gurugram, on 05.06.2017, which was a “part occupation certificate” in the name of Naja Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. At the time of booking, the opposite party showed that the construction would be done by Shapoorji Pallonji and Co. Ltd. and not Naja Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Without completing the construction, offer of possession is an effort to collect money from the buyers. The GPA of the complainants, through email dated 30.05.2017 and letter dated 20.06.2017, raised his objection towards various unauthorised demands, incomplete constructions and demanded copy of “occupation certificate”.  But the opposite party did not respond. This complaint was filed on 06.07.2017, alleging deficiency in service.        

4.      The opposite party has filed its written reply on 05.03.2018, in which, booking of the flat, allotment of the flat, execution of agreement and the deposits made by the complainants, have not been disputed. The opposite party stated that the complainants approached the opposite party through a broker, namely M/s. Arvind Estate Pvt. Ltd. At the time of allotment, parking No.PC1026 was allotted to the complainants but on 05.06.2017, through email dated 16.09.2012, they requested for one more parking as such parking No.PC1027 was allotted on payment basis of Rs.400000/-. The opposite party duly apprised the buyers with the status of the project from time to time and regularly updated on the website. The complainants were also updated vide letters dated 10.07.2014 and 20.08.2014. The opposite party completed constructions of 624 apartments and applied for issue of “occupation certificate”, on 31.03.2016, which was issued on 07.10.2016 and the complainants were communicated vide letter dated 10.11.2016. The opposite party is entitled for extension of the period, for which, issuance of “occupation certificate” was delayed under clause-11(b) of the agreement. The complainants were offered possession vide letter dated 27.01.2017, along with final statement of account, in which, ‘early payment rebate’, ‘down payment rebate’ “additional down payment rebate’, ‘decrease in EDC/IDC’ and ‘delayed compensation’ were credited. The demands, including escalation charges, are in terms of agreement. ‘Super area’ has been defined in Annexure-II of the agreement and in clause-1.7 it has been clarified that parking space is not included in ‘super area’. It has also been clarified under clause-10 that ‘super area’ was tentative and liable to vary plus or minus 10% and final ‘super area’ would be determined after issue of “occupation certificate”. In the present case, ‘super area’ is increased to the extent of 1.05%. Clause-1.2 mentioned about escalation charges. Other costs are explained in Note-1, which is proportionate share of taxes and cesses, already paid. VAT and Service tax are statutory liability and have to be paid. Gas pipeline charge is not included in the price as mentioned in the agreement. Clause-20 provides for “Interest Bearing Maintenance Security”. As per Clause-1.2 of the agreement, escalation was worked out to 6.47% of total basic price but escalation @0.86% of basic price was charged as charged by the contractor. The query of the complainants in respect of demands have been clarified through letter dated 30.05.2017, giving all the details and break-up of ‘other costs, along with CA certificate. The complainants are not entitled to dispute various clauses of the agreement at the time of offer of possession. It has been denied that “occupation certificate” dated 07.10.2016 was a “part occupation certificate”. M/s. Naja Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. was land owning company, which was disclosed in the agreement. It is usual practice that final finishing work is done after deposit of the amount on offer of possession. The opposite party issued reminders dated 07.04.2017, 30.08.2017 and 15.11.2017, for deposit of balance amount and taking possession. Instead of depositing balance amount, completing the documentation and taking possession, the complainants raised frivolous objections. “The Primus Condominium Association” has been formed as per Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983 for carrying out maintenance of the project, in which, all the flat owners are entitled for becoming its member. The members can choose and engage their maintenance agency and can elect its managing committee. It has been denied that the basic amenities, which are necessary for habitation in the flat, were not provided at the time of offer of possession. Undertaking has to be given after full satisfaction of performance of the contract at the final stage. Many allottees have taken possession and are residing in it. The construction of the club building and other amenities were completed and “occupation certificate” was issued on 19.06.2017. All the promised amenities and facilities are completed and the complainants can take possession after deposit of balance amount and completing documentations. The agreement provides for arbitration of any dispute and the complaint is not maintainable. The complainants are not consumers rather investors. The complaint has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.

5.      The complainants have filed Rejoinder Reply, in which, they stated that they had further deposited Rs.620890/- on 29.06.2017. The complainants came to know that external roads, which were shown in layout plan attached with the agreement was on private land, for which, the opposite party was paying rent. The private owners may create problem at any time for the residents and in that case there would be no egress and ingress for the project. License for swimming pool has still not been obtained. The opposite party has obtained permission to operate on 16.04.2018. The complainants have purchased the flat for the residence of their aged parents as they did not have any residence in Delhi NCR. “Occupation certificate” prescribed various conditions, from which, it was proved that basic amenities for habitation were not in existence at that time. For this fraudulent misrepresentation, the complainants have lodged a complaint to Commissioner of Police, Gurugram on 23.07.2018. Without there being club house, Rs.35438.88 was extracted towards club.

6.      The complainants filed Affidavit of Evidence, Affidavit of Admission/Denial of documents of Gurpratap Singh and documentary evidence. The opposite party has filed Affidavits of Evidence of Enakshi Kulshreshta and M.S. Negi and documentary evidence. The complainants, through IA/7127/2019, filed Additional Documentary Evidence and Additional Affidavit of Evidence of Gurpratap Singh, through IA/2356/2020, filed Additional Documentary Evidence and Additional Affidavit of Evidence of Gurpratap Singh and through IA/4935/2021, filed Additional Documentary Evidence and Additional Affidavit of Evidence of Gurpratap Singh. The opposite party has filed replies in IAs. Both the parties have filed their written submissions. 

7.      I have considered the arguments of the parties and examined the record. The complaint was filed challenging various demands and issuance of “occupation certificate”. In the Rejoinder Reply, the complainants have raised their objection on a new ground that one approach road of the project has been taken on rent, which is constructed up to the project from one side and other approach road was not constructed. So far as issuance of “occupation certificate” is concerned, the complainants challenged it in Writ Petition (C) No.6558 of 2021 before Punjab & Haryana High Court, which was dismissed. The judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court is res-judicata against the complainants and they cannot raise this issue again before this Commission. Under Haryana Building Code, 2016, “occupation certificate” is mandatory for offer of possession and not the “completion certificate”. The opposite party obtained “occupation certificate” of the building, in which, the complainants were allotted flat on 07.10.2016 and offered possession on 27.01.2017. “Occupation certificate” of club building was obtained on 19.06.2017 and “completion certificate” of the project was obtained on 28.11.2019. It is usual practice among the builders that final finishing works are done after deposit of the amount demanded on offer of possession. Supreme Court in Ireo grace Realtech Vs. Abhishek Khanna, (2021) 3 SCC 241 and this Commission in CC/1564/2017 Shailesh Kumar Vs. DLF Home Developers (decided on 12.09.2018), Vineet Kumar Vs. DLF Universal Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine NCDRC 9 and Pramod Kumar Madan Vs. DLF Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine NCDRC 924, held that if possession is offered after obtaining “occupation certificate”, then the home buyer is contractually obligated to take possession. Shailesh Kumar’s case (supra) arose out of same project “The Primus DLF Green City” and judgment of this Commission has been approved by Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.11254 of 2018 DLF Home Developers Vs. Shailesh Kumar, (decided on 22.02.2019).  

So far as the argument that club building was not complete and club related facilities were not operating are concerned, it may be deficiency in service but on this ground, delivery of possession cannot be withheld. 

8.      The complainants have challenged the demand of increase of super area. In clause-10 of the agreement, it has been mentioned that ‘super area’ was tentative and liable to vary plus or minus 10% and final ‘super area’ would be determined after issue of “occupation certificate”.  In the present case, ‘super area’ is increased to the extent of 1.05%. Supreme Court in DLF Home Developers Ltd. Vs. Capital Green Flat Buyer’s Association, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1125, has upheld 10% increase in super area. Demand in this respect cannot be said to be illegal.  In final statement of account, EDC/IDC has been deducted as it were decreased by Haryana Government.

9.      The complainants have challenged the demand of “other costs”, and service tax. “Other costs” are explained in Note-1, which is proportionate share of taxes and cesses, already paid. VAT is realized under Haryana Value Added Tax, 2003. Service Tax is realized under Finance Act, 2010 as amended by Finance Act, 2017. The charted accountant has given certificate that Swachh Bharat Cess, Krishi Kalyan Cess and Labour Welfare Cess have also been realized. Demand of VAT, Service tax and cess are statutory liabilities and have to be paid.

10.    The complainants have challenged the demand of “Bulk Power Supply”. The opposite party has deposited total Rs.82300000/- for Power Supply. The opposite party applied for supply of 3570 KW electricity, on 21.10.2016, which was revised for 3948 KW on 17.01.2017. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. sanctioned bulk power supply on 14.06.2017. Power supply was started from 08.06.2018, the load was increased in September, 2021 and June, 2022. Now the sanctioned load is being supplied. Demand from the buyers for “Bulk Power Supply” on pro-rata basis is not illegal.

11.    The complainants have challenged the demand of gas pipe charges. Initially there was no gas supply through pipeline near the project. This charge was not included in the price of the flat. At the time of offer of possession, gas supply through pipeline has become available as such, this charge was demanded, which is not illegal. It was an additional facility, which has been provided on payment basis.   

12.    The complainants have challenged the demand of escalation charges, As per Clause-1.2 of the agreement, the opposite party is entitled to realize escalation charges. The opposite party stated that escalation charge was worked out to 6.47% of total basic price but as the contractor has charged @0.86% of basic price, the opposite party is realizing at the same rate, which is not illegal.

13.    The complainants have challenged the demand of “interest bearing maintenance security”, which is as per clause 20 of the agreement. So far as formation of “condominium association” is concerned, the complainants have challenged it in Writ Petition (C) No.19291 of 2019 before Punjab & Haryana High Court and also filed a complaint District Registrar Firms & Society, Gurugram. “The Primus Condominium Association” has been formed as per mandatory provision of Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983 for carrying out maintenance of the project, in which, all the flat owners are entitled for becoming its member. The members can choose and engage their maintenance agency and can elect its managing committee. The complainants are still not member of the association. At this stage, the complainants are not entitled to challenge it without taking possession. So far as allegation relating to financial irregularity, is concerned, the association is registered under Haryana Society Registration Act, 2012 and is subject to audit. If any financial irregularity is found, then the competent authority will take action against the managing committee.

14.    Demand of stilt parking charges has been upheld by Supreme Court in Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rehman Vs. DLF Southern Home Pvt. Ltd., (2020) 16 SCC 512. In final statement of account, ‘early payment rebate’, ‘down payment rebate’ “additional down payment rebate’, ‘decrease in EDC/IDC’ and ‘delayed compensation’ were credited as such final demand cannot be said to be illegal.

15.    The opposite party has stated that as per terms and conditions of “occupation certificate”, the opposite party was supplying potable water through tanker and maintained 24 hour water supply to the residents. The opposite party has applied for permanent connection of water, immediately after issue of “occupation certificate” which was started from 04.09.2021, by HUDA. Shortage of water is still met out through tanker. As per condition of “occupation certificate”, the electricity was supplied through the generator. The opposite party applied for supply of 3570 KW electricity, on 21.10.2016, which was revised for 3948 KW on 17.01.2017. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. sanctioned bulk power supply on 14.06.2017. Power supply was started from 08.06.2018, the load was increased in September, 2021 and in June, 2022. Now full load is being supplied.

16.    The opposite party, in Tentative Plan (Annexure-1-A attached with the agreement), represented two sector roads of 24 meter wide across the project. In fact none of these two roads are sector roads, as is proved from the map of Gurgaon-Manesar Urban Complex, 2031 and Minutes of Meeting dated 30.08.2012 and 08.03.2013, filed along with IA/7127/2019 filed in CC/1913/2017. As admitted to the opposite party, some portion of one road, which is constructed up to the project, belongs to the local farmers and taken on lease through lease deed dated 11.11.2012. The private owners may create problem at any time for the residents and in that case there would be no egress and ingress for the project. After execution of indemnity bond, if the opposite party stopped payment of rent and the private owners block the road, then ingress and egress will be totally blocked and the home buyers will become remedy-less. These roads are still not fully constructed inasmuch as one road is constructed up to the project and not in other side and other road is not constructed. Being private road, it has to be constructed by the opposite party as per their representation. It amounts to unfair trade practice inasmuch as private roads have been represented as sector roads, which is usually constructed by Urban Development Authority.   

ORDER

In view of the aforesaid discussions, the complaint is partly allowed with cost of Rs.200000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only). The opposite party is directed to acquire private land of road through Haryana Urban Development Authority as early as possible not later than six months from the date of this judgment. The opposite party shall complete construction of both the roads in both sides within six months. The complainants may take possession after deposit of balance amount. If the opposite party fails to acquire land of the road and construct both the roads within six months, it shall pay penalty of Rs.one lacs per month to the complainants, after expiry of six months till acquisition of the land and construction of the road.