District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.567/2023.
Date of Institution: 04.09.2023
Date of Order: 29.02.2024.
1. Ravi Girdhar S/o Sh. Chander Prashad R/o House No. 534, Sector-17, Faridabad.
2. Ranju Rakheja W/o Sh. Sudhakar Rakheja r/o 1978, Sector-16, Fairdabad.
…….Complainants……..
Versus
1. M/s. BPTP Ltd., Regd. Office: OT-14, 3rd floor, Next Door, Parkland – 76, Faridabad through its Director.
2. Countrywide Promoters Private Limited, Regd. Office: OT-14, 3rd floor, Next door, Parkland-76, Faridabad. Through its Director.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Ankur Gosain, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Jay Shankar, AR on behalf of opposite parties.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainants had made a booking of Park Elite Floors for his personal use, which were advertised by the respondents for sale somewhere in the year 2009 and the complainants has already paid to the respondents a sum of Rs.20,62,485/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Sixty-Two Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty Five Only) which was equivalent to almost the entire cost of the said unit/floor. Initially in the year 2009, the original booking was made by Sh. K. Raghvinder Kumar and in the year 2011 the said booking was transferred in the name of complainants vide reference no.TRF. 7258/48/131175 dated 21.03.2011 and eventually Buyer's Agreement dated 07.12.2013 was executed in between the complainants and the respondents and Unit No.P7-21-Ground Floor having super built up area of 1047 Sq. Ft. was allotted to the complainants in the project Park Elite Floors, Parklands, Faridabad @ the basic price of Rs.19,42,278.12ps alongwith other charges mentioned in the Buyer's Agreement. The complainants had already made payment of Rs.20,62,485/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Sixty-Two Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty-Five Only) to the respondent which payment had been duly acknowledged in statement of account issued by the respondent to the complainants on 17.12.2022. As per the Clause 4.1 of Buyer's Agreement dated 07.12.2013, the possession of the floor was to be handed over to the complainants within time period of 24 months from the date of execution of the Buyer's Agreement. However, a grace period of 180 days after the expiry of 24 months was also to be granted for pursuing the grant of occupation certificate from the concerned authority. therefore the last date for handing over the possession even after expiry of grace period of 180 days was 07.06.2016. The complainants had made the payments to the respondent no.1 as and when demanded by the respondent, the last payment was made by the complainants in the year 2016 but even till year 2016
but despite receiving almost the entire payment from the complainants, the respondents have failed to complete the construction of the project and has failed to deliver the possession of the said floor/unit to the complainants. The complainants time again visited the office of the respondents to enquire about the status of the said project, but the respondents kept on putting off the complainants on one pretext or the other. Despite making payment as stated above, the Respondent failed to complete Construction of Project within the stipulated time and the construction of the said love allotted to the complainants was still not completed even till date. The complainants visited the office of the Respondent several times and requested the Respondent to handover the possession of the allotted floor to the complainants but no satisfactory response was provided by the respondent. That thereafter on 17.08.2023 the respondent no.1 issued an arbitrary letter to the complainants in which they have offered alternate options towards the amicable settlement in respect of the floor of the complainants. None of the options given by the respondent to the complainants are acceptable to the complainants being arbitrary. There had been a huge delay on the part of Respondent in handing over the possession of the floor of the complainants and the Respondent had used the money paid by the complainants for a long period of more than 10 years without providing the timely possession of the floor and are now offering only 6% simple interest on the amount paid by the complainants. In the said letter the respondent no.1 had also stated that possession of the current unit can be allotted to the complainants within the time period 1 year by August, 2024 which means that the respondent still require one year time to handover the possession to the complainants. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for
directions to the opposite parties to:
i) handover the possession of the allotted Unit/floor to the Complainants with all necessary documents in respect of the said Unit without charging any hidden charges and escalation charges from the complainants.
ii) provide compensation/interest on amount of Rs.20,62,485/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Sixty-Two Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty-Five Only) @ 18% p.a. from the committed date of Possession i.e. 07.06.2016 till the actual date of offer of possession of the Flat.
iii) pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
iv) pay Rs. 50,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite parties put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that :
A. COMPLAINT NOT MAINTAINABLE:
(i) ARBITRATION:
The Complaint under reply was not maintainable in as much as the Parties had, vide Clause 33 of the duly executed FBA, agreed for Arbitration to be the dispute resolving mechanism. Clause 33 of the duly executed FBA is reproduced below:-
"33. Arbitration: All or any disputes arising out of or touching upon or in relation to the terms of this Agreement including the interpretation and validity of the terms thereof and the respective rights and obligations of the parties shall be settled amicably by mutual discussion failing which the same shall be adjudicated upon and settled through Arbitration by the sole Arbitrator. The arbitration shall be governed by the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 or any statutory
amendments/modifications thereto for the time being in force. The Arbitration proceedings shall be held at an appropriate location in New Delhi by a Sole Arbitrator who shall be appointed by the Managing Director of the Seller/Confirming Party i.e. BPT Limited and whose decision shall be final and binding upon the Parties. The Purchaser(s) shall not raise any objection on the appointment of sole Arbitrator by the Seller/Confirming Party. The Purchasers) hereby confirms and agrees that he/she/it shall have no objection to this appointment even if the person so appointed as the sole Arbitrator, is an employee or advocate of the Seller/Confirming Party or is otherwise connected to the Seller/Confirming Party and the Purchaser(s) confirms that notwithstanding such relationship/connection, the Purchaser shall have no doubts or objections to the independence or impartiality of the said sole Arbitrator."
It was submitted that the relationship between the Complainants and OP No.1 is guided by the terms and conditions contained in the FBA which contains Arbitration Clause and in view of the amendment in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and more particularly. amendments made in Section-8 therein, the present dispute(s)/claim(s) are liable to be referred to Arbitration in terms of the above mentioned arbitration clause. Therefore, OP No.1 seeks indulgence of this Hon'ble Commission for referring the matter for arbitration.However, in utter breach of the said agreement between the Parties, the Complainants have indulged in filing the Complaint under reply before this Hon'ble Commission.
(ii) Mis-joinder of parties
The captioned complaint was liable to be dismissed on account of mis-joinder of parties. In this regard it was submitted that the OP No.2 Countrywide Promoters Private Limited' is only a confirming party to said
transaction but is not liable for any action undertaken by OP No.1. Further, it was a matter of record that the Complainants have interacted with OP No. 1 and made payment of the various instalments to OP No. 1 only. Hence, it was evident that OP No.2 had been unnecessarily dragged into the litigation without any specific allegation/s made against it.
(iii) Not a Consumer
The Complainants were not a consumer as defined under Section-2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The said provision specifically provides that a consumer did not include a person who obtains goods for resale or for any commercial purpose and, a person who avails service for any commercial purpose. In terms of Clause 5.1 of the duly executed FBA dated 07.12.2013, the Complainants were provided with the option to seek termination of booking/ allotment and take refund in case of delay in possession of the Unit beyond the timelines agreed under the FBA. However since the Complainants were investors and not end users, they consciously chose not to exit from the Project for the sole purpose of selling the unit at a higher price and deriving monetary benefits. Further, as detailed above, fair and genuine offers were made to the Complainants vide letter dated 17.08.2023 and the Complainants already opted for the option of continuing with the booking/ allotment vide email dated 25.08.2023 but thereafter, as an afterthought, had filed the present false and frivolous complaint against the OP.
B. MISREPRESENTATION OF FACTS AND DOCUMENTS
The complaint was further liable to be dismissed on the ground that the complaint was based on suppression, concealment and misrepresentation of material facts and documents. In this context, the following facts were noteworthy:
i) the Complainants were not the original Applicants with the OP. The Complainants had invested in the secondary market by approaching the OP themselves for transfer of rights in the said Unit from the previous allottee after being satisfied with the Project in question
ii) The Complainants had not purchased the rights in the units from Sh. K. Raghwendra who was the original allottee of the unit in question but from one Sh. Amit Dhall in whose favour the booking/ allotment had been nominated on 19.10.2010 from Sh. K. Raghwendra.
iii) After transfer of booking/ allotment of the Unit in question in favour of the Complainants from Sh. Amit Dhall vide letter dated 21.03.2011, the Complainants voluntarily and willingly executed FBA with the OPs on 07.12.2013 after thorough reading, understanding, agreeing and willingly accepting all the clauses contained therein by affixing their signatures to the said agreement. All the representations made by the OP No.1 including basic sale price, tentative timelines for possession indemnifying OP against any delays in the delivery of possession
were duly agreed between the Parties under the said agreement. The Complainants also agreed to the force majeure events that could impact the aforementioned possession timelines, as stipulated in Clauses 13. Moreover, the Complainants never stepped forward to raise any objection and/or disagreement with any of the incorporated clause/s and hence had agreed and accepted to abide by the same.
iv) Since the unit allotted to the Complainants still required some time for being ready to be offered for possession, the OP No. 1, being a customer-centric organization, extended an offer to the Complainants on August 17, 2023, providing them with three reasonable and genuine resolution options for the Unit in question. These options include to transfer the amount paid against the unit in question to an immediately available and ready-to-move-in unit along with interest at the rate equivalent to, or even surpassing, what certain banks offer for short-term fixed
deposits of less than one year, namely, 6%. Alternatively, full refund of the entire amount paid along with interest at the same percentage was also offered. Alternatively, if the Complainants wished to get the unit in question only, they were apprised about the timelines and were assured that compensation in terms of duly executed FBA shall be given to them. However, the Complainants despite choosing the option of continuing with the booking/ allotment and seeking possession along with compensation, as an afterthought, has filed a false and frivolous complaint against the OP.
v) from a bare reading of the true facts and perusing the documents, it is also evident that the entire complaint is based on misrepresentation of facts and documents and thus, the Complainants have approached this Hon'ble Commission with unclean hands. The Apex Court has held on numerous occasions that the courts/commissions/authorities of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to court must come with clean hands.
C . POSSESSION TIMELINES AND DELAY PENALTY
the Complainants by means of the present Complaint have sought possession of unit along with compensation @18% per annum on the amounts paid by the Complainants while concealing complete facts and by referring to incomplete and selective clauses of FBA and importing incorrect meaning to various clauses of the duly executed FBA as amended with a sole intent to misrepresent the clauses qua proposed timelines. In this regard, the following is noteworthy-
a) as per the terms and conditions of the duly FBA dated 07.12.2013, apart from other terms and conditions, the OP had, vide clause 4.1 of the FBA, proposed to offer the physical possession of the unit within a period of 24 months from the
date of execution of the FBA or on completion of payment of 35% of the Basic Sale price along with 20% of EDC and IDC by the Purchaser whichever is later with a further grace period of 6 months, subject to force majeure or any other
circumstances beyond the control of the OP and adherence to the other material terms and conditions of the FBA. The Parties had vide Clause 4.5 of the duly executed FBA also agreed to extend timelines for offering possession of the said Unit The remedy in case of delay in offering possession of the unit was also parties whereby vide Clause 4.3 of the FBA, agreed to between the OP had agreed to pay compensation @Rs. 5/- per sq. ft. per month for the period of delay.
b) vide Clause 5.1 of the duly executed FBA, it was duly agreed between the Parties that if the completion of the project is halted due to any reason or site is abandoned, then Complainants shall give notice within 90 days after the completion of the said 30 months or such extended period for terminating the agreement and seek refund of the deposited amount and the complainants shall not have any right to claim damages or interest whatsoever.
(c) with a view to encourage the customers to make timely payment of the instalments within stipulated time, the OP also offered timely payment discount (TPD) on the instalments which were paid within the stipulated time thereby further reducing the cost of the Unit and the Complainants herein have availed Rs. 66,131.37 discount towards TPD.
(f) despite such initiatives by the OP, the customers, made huge defaults in making payments of the various instalments and thus, on the one hand, the OP with a view to encourage timely payments, granted TPD to the Customers and thus, effectively reduced the payout by the customers towards the sale consideration of the Unit while on the other hand, delays by the allottees in making timely payments caused major setbacks to the development works. Hence, the proposed timelines stood diluted due to the act and conduct of the buyers. It was submitted that the delayed payments/Non- payments of instalments by various allottee has jeopardised the efforts of the OP in completing the constriction of the said project within the tentative time frame.
(e) It was pertinent to point out that the Project Park Elite Floors was launched by the OP in terms of the Notification dated 16.03.2010, under the Self Certification Scheme issued by the Town and Country Planning Department, Government of Haryana (hereinafter referred to as "the Department") whereby, any person could construct building in licensed colony by applying for approval of building plans by giving notice to the Director or Officers of the department delegated with the powers for approval of building plans intimating the date of start of construction and in case of non-receipt of any objection, the construction could be started. The OP applied for approval of building plans under the Self Certification Scheme. Although, no objection was received from the Department, however, to ensure that there are no problems later, the OP also applied for approval of building plans under the regular scheme.
f) while in few cases, approval under the regular scheme was received from the Department, but neither approval nor non approval of the Department was received against the Application under Self Certification Scheme, thus, the OP continued the Internal Development Works and simultaneously raised the construction on the plots which was in consonance with the prevailing Building Bylaws considering plans are deemed approved. Moreover, the plans adopted were more or less similar to the plans which were approved earlier for the remaining Colonies as well as of some of the units in Faridabad.
g) there was no clarity in the policy of self-certification to the effect whether the same is applicable to individual plot owners only and excludes the developers/colonizers or whether the same is applicable to the developers/ colonizers as well.
(h) the Department vide public notice dated 08.01.2014 granted time of 90 days to submit requests for regularization of construction. The OP in order to
expedite the approvals which were causing delay in relevant approvals as well as to avoid any composition penalty again submitted the building plans for approval under the said notice.
(i) the Department however still had the ambiguity as to whether the policy of self-certification applies to individual plot owners or developers colonizers as well. It was submitted that due to ambiguities in the various policies, the construction of the project was delayed time and again. The OP has, at all times, proactively raised and followed up with the Department highlighting the said issues.
(i) the Department vide its order dated 08.07.2015 finally clarified that self-certification policy shall also apply to cases of approval of building plans submitted by colonizer / developer but did not formally released all the plan submitted by the OP time to time in various building plan approval schemes.
(k) in the meanwhile the OP continued the execution of Internal Development Works in the Colony and laid roads, storm water line, water lines, sewerage network, street lighting, OHT and etc. which was an essential part and parcel of development without which even already built up units could not be made habitable.
(i) the bona fide of the OP are established from the fact that the OP from time to time had been updating the Complainants with respect to the progress being made in the Project, same is evident from various emails dated 28.07.2017, 19.08.201, 10.04.2018, 10.05.2018, 11.05.2018, 17.06.2018, 10.09.2018, 11.09.2018, 04.11.2018, 21.12.2018, 24.01.2019, 23.02.2019, 23.03.2019 and 19.04.2019.
(m) construction and development in the State of Haryana involves a very intricate web of items where every aspect has an equal and opposite reaction with an array of possibilities which make things beyond the control of the developers. A
labor strike or disgruntled farmer Dharna, or even a change in government policy with retrospective effect can change the dynamics of a project and its development and this is an understood and accepted fact regarding construction and development apart from natural disasters which forms part of Force Majeure and is a standard practice in Real Estate.
(n) the delay in handing over of possession of the allotted unit occasioned due to inaction of the Government or its agencies, should be inferred to be caused due to force majeure circumstances beyond reasonable control of the OP.
(o) during last few years, due to issue of pollution, major cause of slow-down / delay in the construction was that on the basis of the recommendations of the CPCB led Task Force, Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Commission, EPCA, previously and from time to time, directions are issued for complete ban on construction activities in Delhi-NCR.
(p)T the delay in offering possession of the unit in question was also attributable to circumstances beyond the control of the OP, including but not limited to the Farmer's protest that resulted in the blockade of all roads ingress and egress of the Delhi-NCR region for more than 15 months, thereby causing a shortage of labor at the project site, such shortage of labor shall be considered a force majeure event as defined under Clause 13 of the Flat Buyer Agreement.
(q). the Ld. UPRERA, while deciding Ajay Rawat v. Gaudsons Realtech Private Limited', (ADJ/NCR144/07/56387/2020) had considered the above referred orders and circulars, as force majeure and extended the date of possession accordingly. Further, the Authority passed similar orders and disposed two bunch of cases 'Nikhil Singhal v Gaudsons Hi Tech Infrastructure Private Limited', 'Himanshu Sharma v Gaudsons Realtech Private Limited. Even if construction work is officially stopped for just 10 days, builders lost out on approximately 60
days every year because of said ban is cumulatively for 30 days, work comes to a standstill for another 30 days to mobilize labor. It was further stated that timelines for completion of projects thus have been most impacted by the ban on construction activity in Delhi-NCR for past number of years, this unfortunately lead to a delay of at least two months and an increase in project cost by at least 2 to 3 percent for all builders. Hence, said circumstances impacted real estate industry as a whole and said fall back has resulted in severe effect on the OP and continue to impact since bans on account of pollution are still continuing. Thus, said force majeure circumstances are real cause in delay in handing over possession.
r) it was pertinent to point out that the Construction of the unit was going on in full swing and the OP was confident to hand over possession of the unit in question shortly. However, due to sudden outbreak of the Coronavirus (COVID-19), the entire country went into lockdown from March, 2020. The Government of Haryana on 02.05.2021 vide Order no. DMC-SPO-2020/5215 imposed the lockdown from 03.05.2021 (05:00 a.m. onwards) till 10.05.2021 (till 05:00 a.m.) in the entire state and directed the District Admiration for the strict implementation of the guidelines. Subsequently, vide Order no. DMC-SPO/5439 dated 09.05.20021, the state imposed lockdown was extended from 10.05.2021 (05:00 a.m. onwards) to 17.05.2021 (till 05:00 a.m.). Thereafter, vide Order no. DMC-SPO-2020/3093, the conditions of the lockdown was further extended from 17.05.2021 (05:00 a.m. onwards) to 24.05.2021 (till 05:00 a.m.). Further, the said lockdown was yet again extended by the Government of Haryana vide Order no. DMC-SPO-2020/5761 from 24.05.2021 (05:00 a.m. onwards) to 31.05.2021 (till 05:00 a.m.). It is imperative to mention herein that the lock down imposed by the Government of Haryana was again extended from 31.05.2021 to 07.06.2021 vide
Order No. DMC-SPO-2020/6008. The pandemic severely hit the entire economy of the Country including the real estate sector because of which construction came to a standstill and it took some time to get the labour mobilized at the site.
(s) the Hon'ble HARERA, Panchkula also acknowledged the unforeseen COVID-19 pandemic as force majeure and granted an extension of nine (9) months to the original timeline to deliver projects vide order dated 26.05.2020 and Board Resolution dated 02.08.2021. In fact, even the Hon'ble Supreme Court took cognizance of the said pandemic and accordingly, the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was exempted for the purposes of limitation.
(t) the construction activities were once again disrupted due to the ban imposed by the Commission for Air Quality Management ("CAQM") on 16.11.2021 in compliance with the directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme. This ban encompassed construction and demolition activities within Delhi-National Capital Region (NCR). Additionally, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also prohibited the entry of heavy vehicles into Delhi- NCR Region, with the exception of those transporting essential items. This vehicular restriction was lifted the Hon'ble Supreme Court on .November 25, 2021.
u) furthermore, on 28.10.2022 the Government imposed a comprehensive ban on all construction activities in the Delhi-NCR region under the Stage III Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) as the Central Pollution Control Board's (CPCB) air quality index fell into 'severe' category in Delhi. The said Order had hugely impacted the OP adversely as the construction work came to a halt at the project site and labourers abandoned due to fear of potential extension of ban.
v) it was pertinent to point out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
'Welspun Speciality Solutions Limited and Others v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and Others', (2022) 2 SCC 382, has observed that merely
having a Clause in the contract making time the essence of it would not be determinative, rather, an overall view having regard to all the terms of contract are to be taken into consideration. Further, they noted that contracts containing provision for extension of time or payment of penalty on default would dilute the obligation of timely performance and render the clauses imbuing time as essence of the contract ineffective. Additionally, under construction contracts, time is not of essence. Hence, the Complainants cannot allege that there was delay in handing over of possession.
w.) it was a matter of record that the OP has already handed over large No. of units in the project Park Elite Floors' to its respective Allottees and was committed to handover the remaining units at the earliest in a phased manner.
The OP had already offered possession to about 90% of the allottees of the Project and is confident that possession of the unit in question, which is already at advanced stage of construction, should be offered shortly after completing construction.
Thus, it was evident that the OP had acted within the 4 corners of the agreement between the Parties and there is no delay attributable to the OP in offering possession of the Unit in question to the Complainants.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties–BPTP with the prayer to: i) handover the possession of the
allotted Unit/floor to the Complainants with all necessary documents in respect of
the said Unit without charging any hidden charges and escalation charges from the
complainants. ii) provide compensation/interest on amount of Rs.20,62,485/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Sixty-Two Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty-Five Only)
@ 18% p.a. from the committed date of Possession i.e. 07.06.2016 till the actual date of offer of possession of the Flat. iii) pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .iv) pay Rs. 50,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/a – affidavit of Ravi Girdhar, Ex.C1 (colly) – letter dated 17.08.2023,, Ex.C2 – letter dated September 17,2022, Ex.C-3 – letter dated 21.03.2011,, Ex.C-4 – Buyer’s agreement, Ex.C5 to C18 -0receipts.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite parties Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Shri jay Shankar, Authorized Representative of the opposite parties,, Ex.R-2(colly) – photos, Ex.R-3 – allotment letter, Ex.R/4(colly) – letter dated March 16,2018 regarding payment request, Ex.R-5 Floor Buyers agreement, Ex.R-6 – notification,, Ex.R-7 – public notice, Ex.R-8 – order dated 01.07.2015, Ex.R-9 (colly)- email, Ex.R-10(colly) – application,, Ex.R-11 –complaint,,Ex.R-12(colly) – order dated 02.05.2011, Ex.R-14(colly) - letter dated 16.11.2021, Ex.R-15(colly) – order dated October 29,2002
6. After going through the evidence led by the complainant, As per Ex.C-1 (colly) consent Form dated 17.08.2023 which are mentioned that:
“Option 1 Refund alongwith 6% simple interest:
Should you not wish to wait for the period of 1 year, we shall refund to you, the received value, alongwith simple interest of 6% per annum from the date of such installment payment until the date of the refund and you shall be left with no rights and entitlements in the unit.
Option 2 Agree to Change in Time for Possession alongwith Delay compensation as applicable in terms of the Buyers Agreement.
Should you wish to wait for the completion of the project and accept the revised date for possession. Herein, we would request you to kindly sign an amended Builder Buyer Agreement (BBA), reflecting the revised date of delivery. Our team will provide you with the necessary documentation and guide you through the process.
Option 3 Choose the alternate ready to move in Unit at Current Market Value & adjust principle paid alongwith simple interest at 6% in the new unit and pay balance amounts.
We present this option to transfer the interest andprinciple amount paid by you towards a new unit within BPTP, at its current market value. Incase principle and interest amounts exceeds market rate of the unit in which funds are being adjusted we will refund the excess amount. This choice allows you to maintain your investment with us while selecting a different unit that aligns with your preferences. This offer is a limited time period offer subject to availability of unit based on first cum first serve basis. If you select this option, our team will assist you in identifying suitable built up alternatives from available inventory and guide you through the necessary steps
Projects | Unit size(Range) |
Park Floor-1 | 1038 to 1458 |
Park Floor-2 | 1037 to 1483 |
Resort | 1798 to 2028 |
Princess Park | 1285 to 2010 |
Opposite party sent the consent form to the complainant to pick one of the option given by the opposite party and reply within 15 days from the date of receiving that
letter. Instead of filing reply to that letter, complainant has filed this complaint. As per the evidence of the opposite parties, the unit booked by the complainant are not ready for deliver the possession. It is already 10 years.
7. During the course of arguments, Shri Ankur Gosain, counsel for the Complainant has given photographs & suffered a statement that ”As per the photographs of the project, I am ready to wait till 17.08.2024 as per your letter dated 17.08.2023 vide Ex.R/17(colly) regarding possession of the unit. But I press for D.P.P.@ 9% p.a. from the date of delay.”
8. Keeping in view of the above submissions as well as the statement of the counsel for the complainant alongwith the photographs of the project, which was given by the complainant during arguments, the Commission is of the opinion that when the project is not ready, above mentioned letter sent by the opposite parties to the complainant for one years to wait for possession of the unit, it amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the complaint is allowed.
9. Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2, jointly & severally are directed to handover the possession by 17.08.2024 without charging any hidden charges and escalation charges from the complainant. Opposite parties are also directed to pay the DPP as per agreement from the committed date of possession i.e.07.06.2016 till
the actual date of possession. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.11,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment alongwith Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copy of this order be given to the parties concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.
Announced on: 29.02.2024. (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
