1.      Heard Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, Advocate, for the complainants and Mr. Prabhakar Tiwari, Advocate, for the opposite party.

2.      Above complaint has been filed, for directing the opposite party to (i) handover possession of Unit No.702, Tower-2, in the building “Parsvnath Paramount”, complete in all respect as per specifications, forthwith, (ii) to pay delayed compensation of Rs.13736350/- with interest @24% per annum, (iii) to pay Rs.20000/- per month from the date of filing of the complaint till delivery of possession, (iv) to pay Rs.110000/-, as the costs of litigation, (v) to pay Rs.10/- lacs, as compensation for mental agony and harassment; and (vi) any other relief which is deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. The complaint was amended with the leave of the Commission vide order dated 24.03.2022 and relief of refund of money as per market value of the flat with interest @24% per annum has been prayed.

3.      The complainants stated that M/s. Parsvnath Developers 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 projects. The opposite party launched a group housing project in the name of “Parsvnath Paramount”, at Subhash Nagar, (near Subhash Nagar Metro Station), Delhi, in the year 2008 and made wide publicity. On coming to know about the project, the complainants booked a 3BHK flat on 15.07.2008 and deposited Rs1603066/-. The opposite party allotted Flat No.301 admeasuring 1805 sq.ft. at the rate of Rs.7105/- per sq.ft. total price of Rs.12824525/-+ Rs.300000/- for covered Car Parking space, Tower-3, in “Parsvnath Paramount” to them. The opposite party executed Flat Buyer Agreement dated 10.10.2008, in favour of the complainants. As per clause-11(a) of this agreement, the construction of the flat has to be completed within 30 months of commencement of construction with grace period of six months. The complainants opted for “Construction Linked Payment Plan”, under which 25% of sale price was payable within 30 days of booking, 60% of sale price + Car Parking charge was payable in six instalments and 15% of sale price was payable in three instalments The complainants deposited Rs1603066/- on 15.07.2008, Rs1603066/- on 14.08.2008, Rs.1582452/- on 30.10.2008, Rs.340685/- on 11.06.2011, Rs.615321/- on 13.07.2011, Rs.800000/- on 13.07.2011, Rs.315320/- on 14.10.2011, Rs.900000/- on 14.10.2011, Rs.1422426.54 on 09.04.2012, Rs.500000/- on 21.04.2012, Rs.520697/- on 21.04.2012, Rs.1422426/- on 28.06.2012, Rs.1422427/- on 30.01.2013, Rs.708345/- on 08.11.2013 and Rs.7155/- on 21.12.2013 (total Rs.13062971/-) as per demand of the opposite party. The opposite party unilaterally transferred Flat No.301, Tower-3 to Flat No.-702 (admeasuring 1942 sq.ft.), Tower-2, in April, 2011. The opposite party collected Rs.60141/- on 29.01.2014 and Rs.60141/- on 13.03.2014, in the head of VAT. The opposite party demanded Rs.715477.18, vide letter dated 25.10.2013, on “Start of Internal Plaster”. The period of 36 months had already expired. The complainants tried to contact the opposite party to know the progress of the project. The opposite party avoided to reply correct facts. The complainants visited the site in June, 2015 and found that no construction work was going on. The complainants, vide letter dated 15.06.2015, inquired as to within what time, the construction would be completed. The opposite party vide letters dated 29.06.2015 and 05.07.2015, gave vague and evasive reply that they would complete the project at the earliest. The complainants, vide letters dated 28.10.2015 and 06.01.2016 wanted to know the exact time, up to which, they would get possession. The opposite party did not respond. Then the complaint was filed on 21.09.2016.

4.      The opposite party (the builder) filed its written reply on 21.11.2016 and contested the case. The material facts relating to the project, allotment of the flat to the complainants and deposits made by them, have not been disputed. The builder stated that Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (DMRC) gave the land of the project vide agreement dated 17.04.2006 and executed lease deed dated 21.09.2006. The builder submitted Layout Plan of the project for approval before DMRC, which was approved. The builder submitted Layout Plan of the project for approval of Municipal Corporation Delhi (for short MCD) on 05.06.2006. MCD vide letter dated 17.07.2006, demanded Layout Plan for EWS section. The builder submitted revised Layout Plan on 24.10.2006. Ministry of Urban Development, vide Notification dated 07.02.2007, reserved 15% FAR or 35% of the dwelling unit for EWS. Standing Committee of MCD approved the Layout Plan vide Resolution No.194 dated 06.06.2008. However, MCD directed to obtain NOC from Delhi Development Authority. Although MoUD (L&DO), vide order dated 30.03.2009, clarified that no NOC of DDA was required but Layout Plan was not released. In the meantime, Master Plan of Delhi was modified vide Notification dated 19.05.2009. Building Plan was sanctioned on 22.07.2010. However, in view of Notification dated 19.05.2009, a revised Layout Plan was submitted. MCD, vide letter dated 18.11.2010, demanded various papers. SDMC issued a show cause notice dated 28.04.2011, to the builder, alleging unauthorised construction and vide order dated 18.10.2011, directed to seal the construction of the project, which was sealed on 03.11.2011. SDMC, vide letter dated 28.03.2012, informed that revised Layout Plan was approved by Building Plan Committee vide Item No.23/2012, subject to NOC of DDA. SDMC again vide letter dated 20.03.2013, demanded NOC from DDA. DMRC wrote a letter dated 01.10.2013 to DDA for issue of NOC, in terms of revised FAR. SDMC again wrote a letter dated 20.03.2013, demanding NOC from DDA. Thereafter, SDMC, vide letter dated 21.08.2014, cancelled revised Layout Plan. The builder made a representation dated 10.09.2014 to the Commissioner against letter dated 21.08.2014. Dy. Commissioner, issued a show cause notice dated 01.12.2014, for sealing the project, which was replied by the builder on. The representation of the builder was rejected, vide order dated 22.01.2015. The builder challenged the orders dated 21.08.2014 and 22.01.2015, in appeal, in which, the appellate authority, vide order dated 08.04.2015 directed for maintaining status quo on the spot. The builder applied before DDA for issue of fresh NOC. DMRC also wrote a letters dated 04.07.2017 and 17.04.2018, to DDA for issue of fresh NOC. In that connection a meeting was held between DDA, DMRC and the builder on 28.06.2017 but NOC was not issued. The builder filed Writ Petition (C) No.5468 of 2018, in which, High Court issued interim mandamus dated 10.01.2019, directing DDA to take conscious decision in the matter relating to issue of NOC. However, DDA has not taken any decision. Due to aforesaid reasons the construction was delayed. As per clause-11(a) of the agreement, delivery of possession on due date was subject to force majeure events. Several allottees have committed default in payment of instalments. Due to force majeure reasons the construction could not be completed.                  

5.      The complainants filed Rejoinder Reply, on 22.08.2017, in which, the facts stated in the complaint were reiterated. The complainants filed Affidavit of Evidence of Kiran Saini and documentary evidence. The opposite party filed Affidavit of Evidence of Madan Dogra and documentary evidence. Both the parties filed their short synopsis.

6.      I have considered the arguments of the parties and examined the record. The opposite party allotted Flat No.301 admeasuring 1805 sq.ft. at the rate of Rs.7105/- per sq.ft. total price of Rs.12824525/-+ Rs.300000/- for covered Car Parking space, Tower-3, in “Parsvnath Paramount” to the complainants and executed Flat Buyer Agreement dated 10.10.2008, in their favour. As per clause-11(a) of this agreement, the construction of the flat has to be completed within 30 months of commencement of construction with grace period of six months. The opposite party realized total Rs.13062971/-, up to December, 2013. In Flat Buyer Agreement, the opposite party stated that they had submitted Layout Plan to the concerned authority. From the written reply, it is proved that Layout Plan was not sanctioned in the absence of NOC from DDA and the construction has been sealed on the spot by DDA. There is unreasonable delay in offer of possession, which amounts to deficiency in service. Without sanction of layout plan, the opposite party has realised more than the basic sale price of the flat, which amounts to unfair trade practice. Supreme Court in DLF Home Developers Ltd. Vs. Capital Green Flat Buyers Association, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1125, held delay in sanction of layout plan cannot be treated as force majeure reason.

7.      Supreme Court in Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank, (2007) 6 SCC 442, Fortune Infrastructure Vs. Trevor D’Lima, (2018) 5 SCC 442 and Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Devasis Rudra, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 438, held that a home buyer cannot be made to wait for possession of the flat for indefinite period.

8.      The counsel for the complainants relied upon judgments of this Commission in CC/232/2014, Puneet Malhotra Vs. Parsvnath Developers Limited (decided on 29.01.2015), Subhash Chander Mahajan Vs. Parsvnath Developers Limited (decided on 05.05.2014), CC/200/2011, Abhishek Kumar Dwivedi Vs. Parsvnath Developers Limited (decided on 05.05.2014), Kushal K. Rana Vs. M/s. DLF Commercial Complexes Ltd. (decided on 09.09.2014), RP/2342/2014, M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd. Gautum Bahri (decided on 22.07.2014) CC/642/2016, Kamal Jeet Gupta Vs. Parsvnath Developers Limited (decided on 26.09.2019) and Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6730-6731 of 2012, K.A. Nagmani Vs. Housing Commissioner Karnataka (decided on 19.09.2012) and claimed interest @18% per annum. However Supreme Court in IREO Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abhishek Khanna, (2021) 3 SCC 241, held that in the matter of refund, interest @9% per annum, from the date of respective deposit will appropriate compensation. In Experion Developers (P) Ltd. Vs. Sushama Ashok Shiroor, 2022 SCC OnLine 416, held that in the matter of refund, award of interest @9% per annum, from the date of respective deposit will appropriate restitutory and compensatory compensation. In Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank, (2007) 6 SCC 442, held that in the matter of contractual obligation, there is no scope for compensation for mental agony and harassment. In DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D.S. Dhanda, II (2019) CPJ 117 (SC) held when interest is awarded as compensation then awarding additional compensation was not justified.    

ORDER

In view of the aforesaid discussions, the complaint is partly allowed with cost of Rs.one lac. The opposite parties are directed to refund entire amount deposited by the complainants with interest @9% per annum from the date of respective deposit till the date of refund, within a period of two months from the date of this judgment.