1.      Heard Mr. Ishkaran Singh, Advocate, for the complainants and Mr. Prabhakar Tiwari, for the opposite party.

2.      The complainants have filed the aforementioned complaint for directing the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as the builder) (i) to refund Rs.24768529.81 along with interest @24% per annum, from the date of respective deposits till the day of filing of the complaint, (ii) to pay pendente lite and future interest @18% per annum, on the decretal amount, (iii) to pay the cost of the litigation and (iv) any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.        

3.      The facts, as stated in the complaint and emerged from the documents attached with it, are that the builder was a company and engaged in business of development and construction of residential and commercial buildings and selling its unit to the prospective buyers. In the year 2004, the builder launched a project of group housing in the name of “Parsvnath Exotica” at village Wazirabad, Sector-53, Gurgaon, Haryana and gave their glossy and fancy advertisements. Enticed with the glossy and fancy advertisements of this project, the complainants visited the office/site of the builder and discussed about the project with the officials of the builder. The officials, showing a site plant, informed that Towers A, B, C, D, D-1, D-2 and D-3 would be on the main portion of the project and Towers D-4, D-5 and D-6 would be contiguous to main portion, connected with a safe and secured internal road with boundary wall. The occupants of separate contiguous block will also have facilities of ATM machine, grocery shops, club, community hall, gym, shopping complex, beautiful children park, high quality jogger’s pavements, badminton court, swimming pool etc., seamlessly among other facilities provided to main portion. Believing upon the advertisement and representation of the officials, the complainants booked a 3BHK flat on 04.04.2006 and gave a cheque of Rs.770300/-. The builder allotted Flat No. D-6-302, (tentative super area 2810 sq.ft. + car parking space, basic sale price Rs.11802000/-), Tower No.-D-6, in the project. Along with Booking Form, a payment plan was supplied. The complainants opted for “Construction Linked Payment Plan”. Flat Buyer’s Agreement was executed on 21.08.2007. As per clause-10 (a) of the agreement, the construction has to be completed within 36 months, with grace period of six months from the date of commencement of the construction. The complainants promptly paid the instalment as per demand letters. The complainants deposited Rs.770300/- on 04.04.2006, Rs.1000000/- on 04.04.2006, Rs.1000000/- on 23.05.2006, Rs.250000/- on 01.06.2006, Rs.230200/- on 01.07.2006, Rs.826140/- on 11.10.2006, Rs.826140/- on 18.12.2006, Rs.826140/- on 08.01.2007, Rs.826140/- on 21.02.2007, Rs.630000/- on 08.06.2007, Rs.1022280/- on 01.08.2007, Rs.300000/- on 08.11.2007, Rs.826140/- on 19.11.2007, Rs.526140/- on 26.11.2007, Rs.826140/- on 14.01.2008, Rs.826140/- on 10.05.2008 and Rs.826140/- on 06.08.2008 (total Rs.11511956/-). As per agreement, expected date of possession was November, 2009. Time to time, the complainants inquired about the possession of the flat and the builder gave some assurance for delivery of possession as early as possible. The complainants received a letter of the builder dated 29.04.2015, in which; there was no mention of the date of delivery of possession, rather it has been mentioned that the builder would provide delayed compensation. The builder, vide letter dated 02.05.2015, supplied Final Statement of Account showing that after giving rebate of Rs.625000/- an amount of Rs.546576.62 was payable at the time of possession. The builder asked to deposit that amount for doing final finishing work. The complainants then visited site and found that only cemented structure was constructed and there was no approach road to Tower-D-6. In spite of paying about 95% of sale consideration till 06.08.2008, the construction was not likely to be completed in near future and demand was made only to extract balance sale consideration, which was payable at the time of possession. The complainants gave legal notice dated 19.05.2016, for return of the money deposited by them along with interest. When nothing was done, then the complaint was filed on 01.06.2016, complaining deficiency in service. 

4.      The builder filed its written reply on 11.08.2016, in which, material facts have not been denied. It has been stated that due to recession in real estate sector and default by various buyers in timely payment of the instalments, the construction of the tower, in which, the complainants were allotted flat, was not completed within stipulated period. Out of total 18 towers, construction of 11 towers were completed. The builder obtained “Occupation Certificates” of 5 towers and already applied for “Occupation Certificates” for 6 towers. The builder offered for fit out possession of remaining towers. Various technical plea have been raised. It has been stated that the complaint was liable to be dismissed.     

5.      The complainants filed rejoinder reply on 09.03.2017, in which, the facts stated in the complaints were reiterated. The complainants filed various documentary evidence and Affidavits of Evidence of Mrs. Madhushree Singh and Kirti Vardhan Singh. The builder filed documentary evidence and Affidavit of Evidence of Madan Dogra. Both the parties filed their written synopsis.

6.      I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. The facts, as stated in the complaint, have not been disputed. As per Clause- 10 (a) of Flat Buyer’s Agreement dated 21.08.2007, the construction has to be completed within 36 months, with grace period of six months from the date of commencement of the construction. The complainants booked the flat on 04.04.2006 and paying instalments of construction as per demand, since 23.05.2006. As such expected date of possession was November, 2009. According to the builder, in his letter dated 29.04.2009, expected date of possession was April, 2010. Till end of 2021, the builder could not obtain “Occupation Certificate”, although up to 06.08.2008, 95% of sale consideration had been realized. 

7.      Supreme Court in Fortune Infrastructure Vs. Trevor D’ Limba, (2018) 5 SCC 442, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govind Raghavan, (2019) 5 SCC 725, Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Devasis Rudra, 2019 (6) SCALE 462 and Wg.Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan Vs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd., (2020) 16 SCC 512, held that the buyer cannot be made to wait for possession for unlimited period. In case of inordinate delay in offer of possession, the buyer was entitled for refund of money.  

O R D E R

In view of aforesaid discussions the complaint is allowed with costs of Rs. one lac. The opposite party is directed to return entire money deposited by the complainants along with interest @9% per annum from the date of each deposit till actual payment. The order shall be complied with within a period of two months from the date of the judgment. Failing which, the builder will be liable to pay interest @10% per annum.