1.      Heard Ms. Vandana S. Bhandari, Advocate, for the complainant and Mr. Prabhakar Tiwari, Advocate, for the opposite party.

2.      Amit Kumar Jain has filed above complaint for directing the opposite party (i) to refund the amount of Rs.10976103.98/-, with pendente lite and future interest, (ii) to pay Rs.10/- lacs as the compensation for mental agony and harassment, (iii) to pay cost of litigation and (iv) any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of case.

3.      It has been stated in the complaint that Parsvnath Developers Limited (the opposite party) (hereinafter referred to as the builder) was a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of development of residential and commercial building and selling its unit to the prospective buyers. The builder launched a project in the name of “Parsvnath Privilege”, at Plot No.-11, Sector-Pi, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar in the year 2006 and made wide publicity. The complainant booked a 3 Bedroom flat (super area 1855 sq.ft., basic sale price Rs.5286750/-) on 30.04.2006 and deposited Rs.1000000/-. The builder provisionally allotted Flat No.T-17-1103 on 23.02.2007. Flat Buyer Agreement was executed on 06.09.2007. Clause-10 (a) of Flat Buyer Agreement provides that construction of the flats was likely to be completed within 36 months from the date of commencement of the construction of the particular block on receipt of all requisite approval. As per demand, the complainant deposited Rs.321688/- on 20.03.2007, Rs.805200/- on 06.10.2007, Rs.241777/- on 29.05.2008 and Rs.470072.50/- on 11.11.2008. The builder introduced “Part Down Payment Plan” vide letter dated 09.12.2008, under which, rebate of 12% of basis sale price was offered. The builder, vide letter dated 26.06.2010, informed that in view of the provisions under Finance Act, 2010, “Service Tax” @2.5%, “Education Cess” @3% of basic sale price would be charged. 10% of basic sale price would be charged as Preferential Location Charges. The complainant opted for “Part Down Payment Plan” and inquired the amount to be deposited after adjusting 12% rebate. The builder, vide letter dated 03.06.2011, informed that total Rs.2240734/- would be payable under “Part Down Payment Plan”. The complainant, after taking loan from his employer, deposited Rs.20/- lacs on 03.06.2011 and Rs.240736/- on 07.04.2012. The complainant wrote a letter dated 02.01.2014, for knowing the stage of construction and vide letter dated 04.01.2014, sought information regarding delivery of possession but no reply was given. The complainant visited the site and found that there was no progress in construction on the spot. Then this complaint was filed on 07.09.2015, alleging unfair trade practice, inasmuch as about 95% of basic sale price was realized till 07.04.2012 but the builder was not proceeding with the construction.

4.      The builder filed their written reply on 11.01.2016, in which, the material facts have not been denied. It has been stated the complaint has been filed seeking refund of the money, claiming exorbitant interest contrary to the Flat Buyer Agreement dated 06.09.2007 and the provisions of Interest Act, 1978. Interest of the buyers has been safeguarded in Flat Buyer Agreement, providing delayed compensation under Clause 10-(c). Delay in construction of the project was caused due to global recession in the real estate sector since 2007-2008. Various buyers committed default in payment of instalment, which affected the construction. Despite adverse circumstances, the builder is striving hard and making all efforts to complete the construction. The project is under way and not abandoned by the builder. The complainant booked the flat knowing all the facts and no unfair trade practice has been committed. The complaint raises complicated issues of the facts, which could only be decided by Civil Court. The complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

5.      The complainant filed his Rejoinder Reply, in which, the facts stated in the complaint have been reiterated. The complainant filed various documentary evidence and Affidavit of Evidence of Amit Kumar Jain. The builder filed Affidavit of Evidence of R.C. Gupta. Both the parties filed their short synopsis.

6.      I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. It is not disputed that the complainant had made timely payment as per demand and had paid 95% of basic sale price till 07.04.2012. Clause-10 (a) of Flat Buyer Agreement dated 06.09.2007 provides that construction of the flats would be completed within 36 months from the date of commencement of the construction of the particular block on receipt of all requisite approval. As such promised date of possession was September, 2010 but the construction is still incomplete. The complainant had taken loan and paying higher rate of interest on it.

7.      Supreme Court in Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank, (2007) 6 SCC 711, 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, has held that the buyer cannot be made to wait for indefinite period for possession.      

O R D E R

In view of aforesaid discussions the complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund the entire amount deposited by the complainant along with interest @9% per annum, from the date of each deposit till its actual payment, within a period of two months from the date of this judgment.