1.      Heard Mr. Sushil Kaushik, Advocate, for the complainants and Mr. Shivkant Arora, Advocate, for the opposite party.

2.      Above complaints have been filed for directing Ansal Housing & Construction Limited, (the opposite party) to (i) refund entire amount deposited by the complainants with interest @18% per annum from the date of respective deposits till the date of refund, (ii) pay Rs.500000/-, as compensation for mental agony and harassment, litigation costs; and (iii any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. As all the complaints have been filed for similar relief against same opposite party as such these complaints are decided by a common order.

3.      Praveen Kumar Bansal and Mrs. Pooja Rani filed CC/2296/2019, stating that M/s. Ansal Housing and Construction 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 “Ansal Heights, 86”, Sector-86, Gurgaon, Haryana, in the year 2011 and made wide publicity of its facilities and amenities. Believing upon the representations of the opposite party, Praveen Kumar Bansal and Mrs. Pooja Rani booked a flat on 01.11.2011 and deposited the booking amount of Rs.644000/-. The opposite party allotted Unit No.G-1003, saleable area 1360 sq.ft. for basic sale price of Rs.4645200/- and executed a Flat Buyer’s Agreement in their favour on 28.07.2012. Annexure-A of the agreement provides payment plan as “construction link payment plan”. As per demand of opposite party, Praveen Kumar Bansal and Mrs. Pooja Rani deposited total amount of Rs.5225568/- till 30.06.2017. Clause 31 of the agreement provides 42 months period from the date of execution of agreement, for offer of possession with grace period of six months. The agreement was executed on 28.07.2012. Forty two months period expired on 27.01.2016 and grace period of six months period expired on 27.07.2016. The opposite party has neither completed the construction nor offered possession of the flat allotted to them although they have paid more than basic sale price. In reply to the letter of Resolve Estate Pvt. Ltd., the office of Director, Town & Country Planning, Haryana, vide letter dated 24.05.2017, informed that the opposite party had not applied for issue of “occupation certificate”. As the construction was not proceeding, the complainants requested to refund their money but the opposite party did not give any heed to the request of the complainants. Then this complaint was filed on 27.11.2019, alleging deficiency in service.

In CC/2296/2019, the complainants filed Rejoinder Reply, Affidavit of Evidence and Affidavit of Admission/Denial of documents of Praveen Kumar Bansal. The opposite party filed Affidavit of Evidence of Vaibhav Chaudhary.

4.      Debashish Bhowmick and Mrs. Rubi Bhowmick filed CC/2297/2019 stating that M/s. Ansal Housing and Construction 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 “Ansal Heights, 86”, Sector-86, Gurgaon, Haryana, in the year 2011 and made wide publicity of its facilities and amenities. Believing upon the representations of the opposite party, Debashish Bhowmick and Mrs. Rubi Bhowmick booked a flat on 28.08.2012 and deposited the booking amount of Rs.700000/-. The opposite party allotted Unit No. GLS GW-1406, saleable area 1940 sq.ft. for basic sale price of Rs.8554004/- and executed a Flat Buyer’s Agreement in their favour on 17.04.2013. Annexure-A of the agreement provides payment plan as “construction link payment plan”. As per demand of opposite party, they deposited total amount of Rs.7516152/- till 06.02.2017. Clause 31 of the agreement provides 42 months period from the date of execution of agreement, for offer of possession with grace period of six months. The agreement was executed on 17.04.2013. Forty two months period expired on 16.10.2016 and grace period of six months period expired on 16.04.2017. The opposite party has neither completed the construction nor offered possession of the flat allotted to them although they have paid more than 80% of basic sale price. In reply to the letter of Resolve Estate Pvt. Ltd., the office of Director, Town & Country Planning, Haryana, vide letter dated 24.05.2017, informed that the opposite party had not applied for issue of “occupation certificate”. As the construction was not proceeding, the complainants requested to refund their money but the opposite party did not give any heed to the request of the complainants. This complaint was filed on 27.11.2019, alleging deficiency in service.

In CC/2297/2019, the complainants filed Rejoinder Reply, Affidavit of Evidence and Affidavit of Admission/Denial of documents of Debashish Bhowmick, The opposite party Affidavit of Evidence of Vaibhav Chaudhary.

5.       Rajeev Parnami and Harsimeran Jeet Singh filed CC/2298/2019, stating that M/s. Ansal Housing and Construction 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 “Ansal Heights, 86”, Sector-86, Gurgaon, Haryana, in the year 2011 and made wide publicity of its facilities and amenities. Believing upon the representations of the opposite party, Nirpal Singh Rial (the predecessor-in-interest of the complainants) booked a flat on 30.11.2011 and deposited the booking amount of Rs.644000/-. The opposite party allotted Unit No.H-0201, saleable area 1360 sq.ft. for basic sale price of Rs.4713200/- and executed a Flat Buyer’s Agreement in favour of Nirpal Singh Rial on 01.10.2012. With permission of the opposite party, Nirpal Singh Rial transferred above flat to Rajeev Parnami and Harsimeran Jeet Singh on 11.12.2012. Annexure-A of the agreement provides payment plan as “construction link payment plan”. As per demand of the opposite party, Nirpal Singh Rial, Rajeev Parnami and Harsimeran Jeet Singh deposited total amount of Rs.4912048/- till 08.04.2015. Clause 31 of the agreement provides 42 months period from the date of execution of agreement, for offer of possession with grace period of six months. The agreement was executed on 01.12.2012. Forty two months period expired on 31.05.2016 and grace period of six months period expired on 30.11.2016. The opposite party has neither completed the construction nor offered possession of the flat allotted to them although they have paid more than basic sale price. In reply to the letter of Resolve Estate Pvt. Ltd., the office of Director, Town & Country Planning, Haryana, vide letter dated 24.05.2017, informed that the opposite party had not applied for issue of “occupation certificate”. As the construction was not proceeding, the complainants requested to refund their money but the opposite party did not give any heed to their request. Then this complaint was filed on 27.11.2019, alleging deficiency in service.

In CC/2298/2019, the complainants filed Rejoinder Reply, Affidavit of Evidence and Affidavit of Admission/Denial of documents of Rajeev Parnami. The opposite party Affidavit of Evidence of Vaibhav Chaudhary.

6.      The opposite party filed its separate written replies in above complaints, in which, booking of the flats by the complainants, allotment of the flats, execution of Flat Buyer’s Agreements in their favour and payments made by them, have not been disputed. The opposite party has taken plea that due to force majeure reasons the construction was delayed; inasmuch as (i) Statutory Authority delayed sanction of layout plan and issued letter for commencement on 03.09.2013 and Environmental Clearance in October, 2013. (ii) High Court of Punjab & Haryana passed a restraint order, restraining the builders from using ground water for construction purposes. Due to which, the opposite party had to arrange water from alternate sources, which required carriage of water in tanker. (iii) National Green Tribunal imposed ban on mining operation of sand in State of Haryana and Rajasthan, which created shortage of building material. (iv) In April, 2015, National Green Tribunal stopped construction due to environmental reason. (v) In November, 2016, Government of India demonetized the currency notes of rupees 1000, which created shortage of currency and the contractors as well as labourers were forced to go their village, as due to shortage of currency, the builder was not able to make payment to them. Now the opposite party is proceeding with construction with full swing and they would be in position to handover possession till July, 2020. The period as given in Clause 31 of the agreement has to be counted from October, 2013 i.e. the date when letter of commencement dated 03.09.2013 was received and due date of possession expired in September, 2017. The opposite party is entitled for extension of period for above force majeure reasons, which were beyond their control. At this stage when the construction is near completion, the claim for refund is not justified.

The opposite party filed Affidavit of Evidence Vaibhav Choudhary, Affidavit of Evidence and Affidavit of Admission/Denial of Nikita Patra, Affidavit of Evidence Vaibhav Choudhary. Vaibhav Choudhary, in Affidavit of Evidence filed in CC/2296/2019, has stated that the opposite party had applied for issue of “occupancy certificate” on 04.08.2018. The parties have filed their short synopsis of argument.

7.      The counsel for the opposite party submitted that necessary approvals for construction was delayed by statutory authority and letter of commencement was issued on 03.09.2013 and Environmental Clearance in October, 2013. 42 months period and six months grace period as provided in Clause 31 have to be counted from November, 2013 and due date of possession as upto October, 2017. Clause-31 is further subject to force majeure reasons. The construction was delayed for force majeure reasons i.e. ban imposed by Punjab and Haryana High Court in use of ground water by the builders for construction purposes, ban imposed by National Green Tribunal on mining operation of sand in State of Haryana and Rajasthan as well as demonetarization of currency notes announced by Government of India in November, 2016. Therefore, period for which, the construction was delayed for force majeure reasons are liable to be executed from counting for the period of 42 months. In such circumstances, the buyers are not justified to claim refund. 

8.      We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. Clause 31 of the agreement provides 42 months from the date of agreement or from the date of obtaining required sanctions and approvals necessary for commencement, for delivery of possession. According to the opposite party all the necessary approvals were obtained till October, 2013 as such 48 months have completed in October, 2017. So far as force majeure reason is concerned, the ban imposed by Punjab and High Court for extracting ground water for construction purposes as well as ban imposed on mining operation of sand by National Green Tribunal are concerned, these bans were prior to the dates of agreements. Payment plan was “construction linked payment plan”. The opposite party realized the instalment of various levels of construction and up to June, 2017 and about the entire basic sale price had been realised. Therefore, it is not proved that due to ban imposed by Punjab and Haryana High Court and National Green Tribunal, the construction of the opposite party had been affected on the spot.

9.      So far as demonetization announced by Government of India in November, 2016 is concerned, it certainty affected the construction work, but its effect was at the most for a period of six months.  Even if this six months is added in the due date of possession, it expired in March, 2018. Till today the opposite party has neither completed the construction nor has obtained occupancy certificate. It is well settled that a home buyer cannot be made to wait for possession for an indefinite period.

ORDER

In the result, the complaints are partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund entire amount deposited by the complainants 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.