JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) One Mrs. Manju Puri, booked a residential flat with the OP in a project namely ‘Parsvnath Exotica’ which the OP was to develop in Sector-53 of Gurgaon. Flat No. D6-903 on the 9th Floor in Tower D-6 of the project was allotted to her for a basic sale price of Rs.7,727,500/-. She then executed a Flat Buyer’s Agreement with the OP on 05.05.2006, wherein respective rights and obligations of the parties in respect of the said allotment were recorded. 2. The said allotment was later acquired by Mr. Parag Mehta and Mr. Alok Mehta and was transferred in their name on 05.05.2006. Mr. Parag Mehta and Mr. Alok Mehta transferred the allotment in favour of one Mrs. Neelam Kumari and the said transfer was endorsed in her name on 02.09.2009. The complainants acquired the allotment from Mrs. Neelam Kumari and the said transfer was endorsed in their favour on 10.01.2011, on payment of the requisite transfer charges. 3. As per the payment plan agreed between the original allottee and the developer, the third installment was payable on the start of foundation. The statement of account filed by the complainants would show that the third installment became due on 20.12.2006, meaning thereby that at least the foundation had started by 20.12.2006. Therefore, as per the agreement between the original allottee and the OP, the construction ought to have been completed by 20.06.2010 when 42 months from the start of the foundation expired. 4. The OP offered possession of the allotted flat to the complainants for the limited purpose of fit outs on 04.05.2017 but the possession was not taken by them since the requisite Occupancy Certificate had not been obtained by the OP. This is also the case of the complainants that at the time the flat was offered for fit outs, it was not complete. According to the complainants, an expenditure of about Rs.47 lacs was required for completing the construction. The complainants have also obtained the report from an Architect in this regard. Since the construction according to the complainants, has not been completed and the possession of the completed house has not been offered to them, they are before this Commission seeking possession of the allotted house alongwith compensation etc. 5. The complaint has been resisted by the OP on several grounds but it is an admitted position before me that the grounds on which the complaint has been resisted, have already been rejected by this Commission in several other Consumer Complaints including Mallika Raghavan Vs. Parsvnath Developers Limited CC No.127 of 2017 decided on 19.04.2018. The decision of this Commission in Mallika Raghavan (supra), to the extent it is relevant, reads as under: “4. The learned counsel for the complainant has drawn my attention to the decision of this Commission dated 21.1.2016 in Consumer Complaint No. 91 of 2009 Col. Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore Vs. M/s. Parsvnath Developers Ltd., wherein the opposite party had allotted a flat in Tower D-4 of this very project to the complainant therein but had failed to deliver possession of the said flat to hm. The complaint instituted by Col. Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore was resisted by the opposite party, primarily on the ground that the recession had hit Indian economy over past two years and Real Estate Sector was one of the worst hit sectors, as a result of said slow down. The aforesaid plea taken by the opposite party was rejected by this Commission, noticing that the slowdown in the economy was not one of the grounds which could justify the delay in completion of the construction, since Clause 10(a) of the Agreement between the parties referred only to restrictions/ restraints from any Court / Authority, non-availability of building material, disputes with contractors / workforce etc., and the circumstances beyond the control of the developers. It was noted that there was no evidence of the opposite party having constraints on account of such a reason in carrying out or completing the construction of the flat. It was further noticed that there was no evidence of non-availability of building material or the opposite party having dispute with any contractor / workforce deployed at the site of the construction. It was held that the delay in completion of the project unjustified. The opposite party was therefore, directed to complete the construction of the flat in all respects, deliver its possession within eight months from the order of this Commission and also pay compensation in terms of the said order to the complainants therein namely Col. Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore. 5. In my view, lack of adequate sources of finance with the opposite party cannot be a justified ground for the delay in completion of the construction. It was for the opposite party to arrange the finance required for completion of the project within the time stipulated in this regard and it has only to blame itself if it could not arrange the requisite finance. As far as shortage of the labour is concerned, there is no evidence of the labour not being available during the relevant period. Rise in the man power and material cost or approval and procedural difficulties cannot justify the delay in completion of the project.” 6. An appeal being Diary No.13163 of 2019 in Civil Appeal No.12191 of 2018 is stated to have been preferred by the OP against the decision of this Commission in Mallika Raghavan (supra) and pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The execution of the order of this Commission in Mallika Raghavan (supra) is stated to have been stayed. 7. Since it is an admitted position that the Occupancy Certificate in respect of the allotted flat has not been obtained so far by the OP, I specifically asked the learned counsel for the OP as to whether they will be in a position to offer legal possession of the allotted flat to the complainants after obtaining the said Occupancy Certificate. The learned counsel for the OP submits that though they have already applied for the grant of the Occupancy Certificate, no time limit can be given by them for obtaining the said Certificate from the concerned authorities and therefore, they cannot give any definite time frame for delivery of possession after obtaining the requisite Occupancy Certificate. However, in my opinion, the complainants cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the legal possession of the allotted flat and therefore, the OP must necessarily obtain the requisite Occupancy Certificate at its own responsibility by removing such objections as may have been raised by the concerned authorities and give possession of the allotted flat thereafter in a time bound manner. 8. It would be seen that in the present case, the allotment was purchased by the complainants on 10.01.2011. They knew at that time that the possession cannot be delivered to them within the time frame stipulated in the agreement which their predecessor Mrs. Manju Puri had executed with the OP. Therefore, they should be awarded compensation by this Commission w.e.f. 3½ years of the purchase of the allotment by them though they should also get the rebate which the OP has already given to all the flat buyers from the date committed for the delivery of possession. 9. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the complaint is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The opposite party shall complete the construction of the flat allotted to the complainant in all respects, obtain the requisite Occupancy Certificate from the concerned authorities at its own cost and responsibility and thereafter offer possession of the allotted flat to the complainant on or before 31.03.2020. (ii) The opposite party shall pay in all inclusive compensation (including compensation for the mental agony and harassment) in the form of simple interest @ 8% per annum to the complainant with effect from 10.07.2014, i.e., 3 years and 6 months from the date of purchase by the complainant, till the date on which possession in terms of this order is actually offered to the complainants after completing the construction of the flat in all respects and obtaining the requisite Occupancy Certificate. (iii) The OP shall also pay / credit rebate for the period from 20.06.2010 to 09.07.2014 at the rate at which the said rebate was credited in the account of the complainant. (iv) The balance amount, if any, shall be adjusted out of the compensation payable to the complainant, in terms of this order. (v) The increase if any in the stamp duty after 10.07.2014 shall be borne by the opposite party. (vi) The opposite party shall also pay Rs.25,000/- as the cost of litigation to the complainant. (vii) If the order passed by this Commission in Mallika Raghavan (supra) is set aside or modified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the order so passed will ipso facto apply to this case as well. | 
