CORAM

N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

S C Jain, Member

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

Judgment

1.     The case of the complainants is that they booked a flat with ELDECO Infrastructure & Properties Ltd. (in short the OP) in the year 2008. ‘Flat Buyer’s Agreement’ dt. 10.06.2008 was entered into between the parties. Booking amount of Rs. 3,65,646/- was paid by the complainants. On 26.05.2008 the complainants paid an amount of Rs. 66,97,096/- to the OP uptil 13.07.2008. It was also agreed between the parties that a discount of 13% would be given to the complainants on ‘down payment’. Calculated thus the amount of Rs. 66,97,096/- was paid towards the total sale consideration of the flat. It is the admitted case of the parties that the possession of the flat was agreed to be handed over within a period of thirty four months from the date of agreement. In other words, the OP was required to deliver the possession of the flat to the complainants before May 2011. Finding no progress at the site, the complainants sent an e-mail dt. 22.04.2011, calling upon the OP to handover the possession of the flat in question. Vide its reply dt. 10.01.2012 OP assured the complainants to handover the possession of the flat by last quarter of the year 2012. The same was again not handed over.
2.     OP vide its e-mail dt. 20.08.2012 again assured the complainants that the construction work of the flat would be completed by the end of the year 2012. The present complaint was filed on 16.08.2012.
3.     The sole defence raised by the OP before this Commission is that due to ‘global slowdown’ in the market, the possession of the flat could not be handed over. OP however, submitted that he offered compensation for the delayed possession @ of Rs. 5 per sq. ft. per month to the complainants.
4.     OP has not placed any material on record in support of his contention that there was ‘global slowdown’ in the market which failed him to complete the construction. Admittedly, the complainants had paid the entire sale consideration to the OP. OP has failed to explain the reasons of his failure to handover the possession of the flat to the complainants. OP has also not placed on record any communication offering to the complainants any compensation for the delayed possession of the flat in question. This is a clear case of ‘unfair trade practice’. Prices of the real estate have sky rocketed. Costs of construction too have been gone high. Dream of the complainant of having his own house has been shattered. We, therefore, direct the OP to pay to the complainant as under:-

1. to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs. 66,97,096/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of its realisation.
2. to pay to the complainant compensation to the tune of Rs. 4 Lac for harassment, mental agony, inconvenience, anguish and frustration.
3. to pay to the complainant litigation charges to the tune of Rs. 2 Lac.

The abovesaid payment shall be made by the OP to the complainant within a period of thirty days from today failing which the OP shall be liable to pay an interest @ 24% p.a. on the amount accruing after the expiry of the period of thirty days.

5.     Complaint is accordingly disposed of.
6.     Copy of the order be made available to the parties free of costs as per rule and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.