1.      Heard Mr. Utpal Trehan (In person), the complainant-appellant, in the Court Room and Mr. Praveen Bahadur, Advocate and Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate, for the respondent-builder, through video conferencing.

2.      Both these appeals arise from the judgement of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, dated 20.06.2019 passed in Complaint Case No. 354 of 2015, partly allowing the complaint and directing DLF Home Developers Ltd., (the builder) (i) to offer possession of the apartment afresh and hand over possession to the complainant within 6 weeks and execute the sale/conveyance deed in his name, on payment of stamp duty and registration charges and other incidental charges, within one month thereafter, (ii) to pay delayed compensation @ Rs. 10/- per Sq. ft. per month for the delayed period from the agreed date of possession i.e. March 2011 till the date of fresh offer of possession, after adjusting the delayed compensation already paid to the complainant and (iii) to give a fresh cheque to the complainant, if cheque of Rs.2,40,210.84, has not been encashed, by him.

3.      Utpal Trehan (the appellant) filed a complaint (registered as Complaint Case No. 354 of 2015) for direction to DLF, New Gurgaon Home Developers Pvt. Ltd., C/O DLF Home Developers Ltd. (DHDL), DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi, 110001 (hereinafter referred to as the builder) (i) to give possession of Apartment No. GBD-153, New Town Heights, Sector-91, Gurgaon, Haryana at the earliest, (ii) to pay an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for causing metal trauma and agony due to delay in giving possession, (iii) to pay Additional Delayed Possession Rent @ Rs.15/- sq.ft. till possession is offered to the complainant, (iv) to waive off the undue/ unjustifiable demand already raised towards the Final Dues Settlement, (v) to pay Rs.50,000/- towards the expenses incurred by the complainant in telephonic communications and personal visits made to the builder since 2006 and (vi) to pay Rs.75,000/- towards litigation expenses. It has been stated in the complaint that the builder was engaged in developing, constructing multi-story buildings and selling its unit, under Down Payment and Time Bound Interest Free-Instalments Plans. In February, 2008, the builder advertised construction of residential flats in the name of New Town Heights, Sector 90, Gurgaon. The complainant booked a 3 BHK residential flat in Time Bound Interest Free-Instalments Plans and deposited Rs.5,00,000/- in March, 2008. The builder allotted Apartment No. GBD-153, New Town Heights, Sectior-91, Gurgaon, Haryana, admeasuring super area of size 163.51 Sq. mt. (1760 Sq.ft.) at the rate of Rs.2250/- per Sq. ft. on 16.04.2008 to the complainant. Along with allotment letter, payment plan of the instalment was given, in which 95% of the sale consideration (including booking amount) was to be paid in 10 instalments, within 27 months. The complainant regularly paid the instalments, according to the schedule, up to March, 2009. Apartment Buyer’s Agreement was executed on 03.12.2008, between the parties, in which total cost of the apartment of the complainant of 1760 Sq.ft. was mentioned as Rs.45,12,000/- and the date of last instalment was mentioned as 29.06.2010. In clause-17, of this agreement, it was mentioned that subject to just exceptions, all endeavours be made to complete construction and hand over possession to the buyer within 36 months from the date of execution of the agreement, failing which the buyer would be eligible for compensation @ the rate of Rs.5/- per Sq. feet, per month, for delayed period. Thereafter, the builder, through letter dated 26.03.2009 informed that Final Environment Clearance was awaited as such the construction could not be started; Payment of instalments was converted as “construction Linked Payment Plan”; Amending clause-17 of the agreement, various benefits were provided namely (i) The compensation for delayed possession was enhanced to the rate of Rs.10/- per Sq.ft. per month (ii) The payment received over and above to 35% of sale price was treated as Advance Payment and Advance Payment Rebate equivalent to an interest @ 13% per annum was allowed from the date of such payment till the due date of next instalment as per the revised “Construction Linked Payment Plan” and this rebate had to be adjusted against the next instalment, (iii) 5% discount on basic sale price, (iv) increase of approximately 5% area and (v) “Timely Payment Rebate” to the extent of 10% of the sale value. The builder again through letter dated 05.05.2009, assured for giving 10% of the sale value (excluding government charges) as “Timely Payment Rebate” at the time of giving possession. The builder through letter dated 23.06.2009, informed the complainant that construction was started in May, 2009 and next instalment was to be paid up to 15.07.2009. Early Payment Rebate of Rs.9,059/- and other rebate of Rs.1,98,000/- was credited to the account of the complainant and total Rs.5,38,859/- was in excess in his account. Thereafter, the complainant regularly deposited instalments up to November, 2011, as and when demand notices were served upon him. The builder through letter dated 24.11.2011, demanded Rs.1,66,050/- towards External Development Charges and Infrastructure Development Charges (EDC & IDC), in addition to the amount of instalment. The builder allegedly sent a demand notice in 29.12.2011, asking to deposit next instalment up to 18.01.2012. This demand notice was not received to the complainant. No intimation in this respect was given to him on his Email as such this instalment could not be deposited up to 18.01.2012. The complainant received a reminder dated 19.01.2012 on 22.01.2012, in this respect. 23^rd, January, 2012 was Sunday and 26^th January of Republic day. The complainant arranged the money during short period and deposited on 27.01.2012. The builder offered possession through letter dated 10.06.2013. Along with this letter a statement of account was sent showing balance of Rs.9,00,382/-. In this statement of account a delayed interest of Rs.1226/- and cost of increased area of Rs.1,53,900/- were added, Early Payment Rebate of Rs.95,136/- and 5% discount of Rs.1,98,000/- was shown to be adjusted but “Timely Payment Rebate @ of 10% of sale value and compensation for delayed possession @ Rs. 10/- per Sq.ft. per month have not been provided. The builder has illegally realised Rs.1,66,050/- towards External Development Charge and Infrastructure Development Charges on 21.12.2011. The complainant wrote various letters in this respect and personally contacted in their office but the builder was not considering his demand. In the meantime, they are demanding maintenance charges also, although possession has not been taken by the complainant.                 

4.      The builder filed its written statement and contested the complaint. In written statement, they admitted that booking of a 3 BHK residential flat in Time Bound Interest Free-Instalments Plans and deposit Rs.5,00,000/- in March, 2008 by the complainant; Allottment of Apartment No. GBD-153, New Town Heights, Sectior-91, Gurgaon, Haryana, admeasuring super area of size 163.51 Sq. mt. (1760 Sq.ft.) at the rate of Rs.2250/- per Sq. ft. on 16.04.2008; and execution of Apartment Buyer’s Agreement dated 03.12.2008, between the parties, in which total cost of Rs.45,12,000/- of the apartment of 1760 Sq.ft. and time of completion of the construction as 3 years from the date of agreement were mentioned; and through letter dated 26.03.2009, allowing Advance Payment Rebate in the shape of interest at the rate of 13% p.a. on the amount in excess of 35% of sale price as on 26.03.2009, 5% discount of Basic Sale Price, increase of approximately 5% area and compensation for delayed possession @ Rs.10/- per Sq.ft. per month from the date of expected possession till actual possession and Time Payment Rebate equivalent to 10% basic sale price. They also admitted deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- on 25.09.2008, Rs.3,84,800/- on 29.05.2008, Rs.3,31,800/- on 29.07.2008, Rs.3,31,800/- on 29.09.2008, Rs.3,31,800/- on 26.12.2008, Rs.3,31,800/- on 27.03.2009, Rs.42,510/- on 21.10.2010, Rs.3,39,629/- on 19.01.2011, Rs.3,39,782/- on 24.02.2011, Rs.3,41,182/- on 04.03.2011, Rs.3,38,339/- on 29.08.2011, Rs.1,66,050/- on 21.12.2011 (EDC &IDC charges), Rs.3,39,629/-  on 27.01.2012, Rs.3,41,061/- on 27.03.2012 and Rs.3,41,101/- on 06.07.2012 by the complainant. They stated that time was essence of contract. The builder used to send demand notices through courier service on the address as supplied by the complaint and mentioned in the agreement. Demand notice dated 29.12.2011 was also sent to the address of the complaint as mentioned in the agreement, where it was received by one Gita on behalf of the complainant but he failed to deposit this amount till 18.01.2012, which was due date of deposit. Then a reminder dated 19.01.2012 was given. On which the amount originally demanded was deposited on 27.01.2012 but the interest accrued on it, was not deposited. As the complainant has committed delay of 9 days in deposit of the instalment demanded through letter dated 29.12.2011 as such he was not entitled for “Timely Payment Rebate” and “the compensation for delayed possession”. External Development Charges and Infrastructure Development Charges were dues of state government and was realized on pro-rata basis, under Clause-1.11 of the agreement. Super structure area has been increased to 1920/- Sq. ft. from 1760 Sq. ft. 5% of the increased area was free while Rs.1,53,900/- was charged for remaining increased area and Rs.1226/- was charged for delayed interest, in the final statement of account dated 10.06.2013. The builder has also raised preliminary objections that disputed property situated in district Gurgaon, Haryana and vide clause-62 of the agreement, the parties agreed for exclusive jurisdiction of the Court in Gurgaon and High Court in Chandigarh as such State Commission in Delhi had no territorial jurisdiction; In the complaint, neither cause of action nor any deficiency in service have been shown; and the complainant was resident of Delhi while the disputed property was in Gurgaon and the flat was booked for earning profit in future, the complainant was not a consumer and his complaint was not maintainable. 

5.      The complainant filed Rejoinder Affidavit to the written statement of the builder on 26.03.2016, in which he denied material facts contrary to the complaint and reiterated the facts stated in the complaint. It has been stated that the builder had collected about 50% of the sale consideration from the allottees, till March, 2009 although by that time they had neither approved lay out plan, which was proved from the fact that they first changed the area of super structure of the flat to 1845 Sq.ft. from 1760 Sq. ft. and finally to 1920 Sq.ft. nor approval/clearance from the government departments. They have not started construction by that time. The various allottees made serious protest before the builder and demanded for return of their money, then realising that their project would failed, they issued letter dated 26.03.2009, giving various benefits to the allottees, in lieu of their deposit of nearly half of the sale consideration. EDC & IDC charges were included in the cost of the flats, on pro-rata basis, which was full and final as it has to be paid along with instalments. The builder has illegally realised Rs.1,66,050/- on 21.12.2011. The builder changed the schedule of payment of the instalments, making it “construction Linked Payment Plan”. Therefore, it was necessary to serve demand notice upon the allottee. Demand notice dated 29.12.2011 was not served upon the complainant or adult member his family. Gita, upon whom, it was served, was not even casual servant of the complainant. Service of demand notice upon Gita was not valid. The complainant cannot be treated as defaulter in as much as the notice dated 19.01.2012 was served upon him on 22.01.2012 and he deposited money on 27.01.2012. Final statement of account, as given on 10.06.2013, was illegal. The builder has its office at DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi, 110001, from where he carried on business, where the deal was settled and the instalments were deposited as such the State Commission at Delhi has jurisdiction. The apartment booked by the complainant was a residential accommodation and was booked for own residence. Its use cannot be changed. No inference can be drawn that the flat was booked for commercial purpose and the complainant was not a consumer.   

6.      The complainants filed his Affidavit of Evidence on 01.11.2016 and documentary evidence (i) Apartment Buyer’s Agreement dated 03.12.2008 (Ex.-CW-1/1), (ii) Application for allotment of residential apartment (Ex.-CW-1/2), (iii) copy of letter dated 26.03.2009 (Ex.-CW-1/3), (iv) copy of letter dated 23.06.2009 (Ex.-CW-1/4), (v) copy Email (Ex.-CW-1/5), (vi) copy of payment demand Email letter dated 11.08.2011 (Ex.-CW-1/6), (vii) copy of letter dated 19.01.2012 (Ex.-CW-1/7), (viii) copy of Email (Ex.-CW-1/8), (ix) photographs (Ex.-CW-1/9), (x) copy of final statement of account dated 10.06.2013 (Ex.-CW-1/10) and (xi) copy of legal notice dated 27.05.2015 (Ex.-CW-1/11).

7.      The builder filed an Affidavit of Evidence of Atul Srivastava and documentary evidence (i) copy of application dated 25.03.2008 (Ex.-OPW-1/1), (ii) copy of Apartment Buyer’s Agreement (Ex.-OPW-1/2), (iii) copy of receipt dated 29.03.2008 and allotment letter dated 16.04.2008 (Ex.-OPW-1/3), (iv) copy of letter dated 26.03.2009 (Ex.-OPW-1/4), (v) copy of letter dated 23.06.2009 (Ex.-OPW-1/5), (vi) copy of cheque dated 29.05.2009 (Ex.-OPW-1/6), (vii) copy of demand notice dated 08.07.2008 (Ex.-OPW-1/7), (viii) copy of demand notice dated 08.09.2008 (Ex.-OPW-1/8), (ix) copy of demand notice dated 08.12.2008 (Ex.-OPW-1/9), (x) copy of demand notice dated 08.10.2010 (Ex.-OPW-1/10), (xi) copy of demand notice dated 24.02.2011 (Ex.-OPW-1/11), (xii) copy of demand notice dated 10.08.2011 (Ex.-OPW-1/12), (xiii) copy of demand notice dated 29.11.2011 (Ex.-OPW-1/13), (xiv) copy of reminder notice dated 19.01.2012 (Ex.-OPW-1/14), (xv) copy of letter dated 06.02.2012 (Ex.-OPW-1/15), (xvi) copy of demand notice dated 16.03.2012 (Ex.-OPW-/16), (xvii) copy of demand notice dated 18.06.2012 (Ex.-OPW-1/17), (xviii) copy of letter dated 10.06.2013 (Ex.-OPW-1/18), (xix) copy of Email dated 31.01.2012 (Ex.-OPW-1/19), (xx) copy of letter dated 24.11.2011 (Ex.-OPW-1/20), (xxi) copies of letters dated 14.02.2014, 23.04.2014, 19.11.2014 and 15.01.2014 (Ex.-OPW-1/21) and copy of statement of account dated 13.01.2016 (Ex.-OPW-1/22).

8.      During pendency of the complaint, efforts were made for mediation in the matter. The builder calculated the compensation for delayed possession to be Rs.2,40,210.84 and a cheque dated 10.10.2016 of this amount was tendered to the complainant, which was not encashed by him. The builder again reconciled the statement of account of the complainant as on 30.09.2018. In this revised statement of account, Rs.4,22,816/- (as compensation for delayed possession), Rs.4,02,076/- (as Timely Payment Rebate) and Rs.14082/- (as interest) (total Rs.8,38,974/-) were credited in the account of the complainant and liability of the complainant of Rs.3,16,899/- (as maintenance charges), Rs.96,000/- (as Interest Bearing Maintenance Security) and Rs.14,18,203/- (as holding charges) (total Rs.18,31,162/-) were shown, and it was stated that Rs.95,136/- has already been credited in the account of the complainant as Early Payment Rebate. The builder also moved an application dated 15.11.2018 (filed on 07.01.2019) before State Commission, admitting his fault in not providing compensation for delayed possession in letter dated 10.06.2013 and prayed that the complainant be directed to pay excess amount according to this application and take possession of the apartment but the complainant did not agree for it.

9.      State Commission, after hearing the parties, by its judgment dated 20.06.2019, came to the conclusion that the demand letter dated 29.12.2011 was not served upon the complainant or any adult member of his family rather it was served upon one Gita and the builder has failed to prove that Gita had any relation with the complainant or had authority to receive demand letter on his behalf. As soon as the reminder dated 19.01.2012 was served upon the complainant on 22.01.2012, he deposited the amount on 27.01.2012. A perusal of statement of account dated 10.06.2013 (Exhibit CW-1/10) proved that the complainant had regularly paid the instalments in time. By tendering cheque dated 14.10.2016 of Rs.2,40,210.84 to the complainant, the builder has admitted his liability of payment of compensation for delayed possession as such the builder had committed deficiency in service. The complainant was justified in not taking possession of the apartment in June, 2013, due to excess demand. As possession of the apartment was not taken as such the builder was not entitled to charge holding charges. On these findings, the complaint was partly allowed and order as mentioned above has been passed. Both the parties are aggrieved by this order and have filed their separate appeals.  

10.    Utpal Trehan (the complainant) submitted that he had regularly paid the instalments according to the schedule as provided in allotment letter till March, 2009. Approximately 50% of total sale consideration was paid by that time. The builder, through letter dated 26.03.2009, admitted that the construction was not started by that time. Realising the loss caused to the buyers, the builder amended Apartment Buyer’s Agreement and provided (i) The compensation for delayed possession at the rate of Rs.10/- per Sq.ft. per month (ii) An interest @ 13% per annum, on the amount received over and above to 35% of sale price, from the date of such payment till the due date of instalment as per the revised “construction Linked Payment Plan”, as Advance Payment Rebate, (iii) 5% discount on basic sale price, (iv) Increase of approximately 5% area free of cost and (v) “Timely Payment Rebate” to the extent of 10% of the sale value. State Commission has recorded findings that the builder has committed deficiency in service in not handing over possession till March, 2011 although the buyer had made payment timely as and when demanded. The builder through the application dated 15.11.2018 (filed on 07.01.2019) admitted that the compensation for delayed possession and Timely Payment Rebate have not been provided, in statement of account dated 10.06.2013. The possession as offered on 10.06.2013 suffered from illegal and excessive demands, without adjusting the benefits for which the complainant was entitled. The complainant rightly did not take possession at that time. The complainant is not liable to pay maintenance charges, Interest Bearing Maintenance Security and Holding charges. On own findings, the State Commission ought to have granted all the relief claimed in the complaint.

11.    The counsel for the builder, relying upon the judgments of Supreme Court in Bharathi Knitting Company Vs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division, (1996) 4 SCC 704 and Secretary Bhuwneshwar Development Authority Vs. Susanta Kumar Mishra, (2009) 4 SCC 952, submitted that the agreement between the parties are binding upon them. Under the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement dated 03.12.2008, the possession has to be delivered within three years from the date of agreement and the instalments had to be paid till 29.06.2010. Environment Clearance was delayed at government level as such the construction could not be started. The builder, therefore, by the letter dated 26.03.2009, amended the terms of the agreement and the payment of the instalments were changed as “construction Linked Payment Plan”. The builder has simultaneously provided various benefits to the buyers through letter dated 26.03.2009, i.e. Advance Payment Rebate in the shape of interest at the rate of 13% p.a. on the amount in excess of 35% of sale price as on 26.03.2009, 5% discount of Basic Sale Price, increase of approximately 5% area and compensation for delayed possession @ Rs.10/- per Sq.ft. per month from the date of expected possession till actual possession and Time Payment Rebate, equivalent to 10% of basic sale price. Advance Payment Rebate, 5% discount of sale price and increase of 5% area have been provided in June, 2009, which is proved from letter dated 23.06.2009. The compensation for delayed possession and Time Payment Rebate had to be paid at the time of final sale deed and were subject to timely payment of the instalments. The complainant had given his address, which was mentioned in the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement. All the demand letters and communications were made on this address through courier service, which were served upon the complainant. Demand letter dated 29.12.2011 was also sent on that address and was received by one Gita as is proved by Photostat copy of the receipt (Exhibit OPW-19). In the demand notice dated 29.12.2011, last date of deposit was 18.01.2012. Admittedly this amount was deposited on 27.01.2012. Time was essence of the contract. As this instalment was not deposited in time as such the complainant was not entitled for Time Payment Rebate. The possession was offered to the complainant on 10.06.2013 but he had not taken possession as such under the terms of agreement, he is liable to pay Maintenance Charges, Interest Bearing Maintenance Security and Holding Charges. State Commission has illegally ignored the liability of the complainant and directed for offering for possession afresh, which is illegal.        

12.    We have considered the arguments of the parties and examined the record. The allotment letter dated 16.04.2008 and Annexure-3 to the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement dated 03.12.2008 provided a “Time Linked Payment Plan” under which 95% of the sale consideration (including Rs.5,00,000/- of booking amount) had to be paid in 11 instalments starting from 29.05.2008 and ending on 29.06.2010. Vide Clause-12 of the Allotment Letter dated 16.04.2008 and Clause-11 of Apartment Buyer’s Agreement dated 03.12.2008, the possession had to be handed over within 36 months from the date of agreement. Environment Clearance Certificate was delayed as such the builder could not start construction till May, 2009, i.e. more than one year from booking. In such circumstances, the builder through letter dated 26.03.2009, amended the terms of the agreement and the payment of the instalments were changed as “construction Linked Payment Plan”. The builder has simultaneously provided various benefits to the buyers, i.e. Advance Payment Rebate in the shape of interest at the rate of 13% p.a. on the amount in excess of 35% of sale price as on 26.03.2009, 5% discount of basic sale price, increase of approximately 5% area and compensation for delayed possession @ Rs.10/- per Sq.ft. per month from the date of expected possession till actual possession and Timely Payment Rebate, equivalent to 10% basic sale price.  Letter dated 23.06.2009 and statement of account dated 10.06.2013 prove that the benefits of (i) Rs.9059/- as Advance Payment Rebate, (ii) Rs.1,98,000/- as 5% discount of basic sale price and (iii) increase of 5% area have been given to the complainant. No dispute remains in this respect.     

13.    The complainant argued that “Timely Payment Rebate” and “compensation for delay in possession” had not been given in statement of the account dated 10.06.2013, for which he was entitled. The builder has denied the Timely Payment Rebate on the ground that in spite of service of demand letter dated 29.12.2011, the amount due was not deposited till last date i.e. 18.01.2012, rather it was deposited on 27.01.2012 (without including the amount of interest accrued on it in the meantime). As the time was essence of contract and this instalment was not deposited in time as such the complainant was not entitled for Time Payment Rebate.  

14.    By the letter dated 26.03.2009, mode of payment of the instalments were changed as “construction Linked Payment Plan” from “Time Linked Payment Plan”. Therefore, the burden was upon the builder to serve demand notice upon the complainant. Admittedly demand notice dated 29.12.2011 was not served either upon the complainant or upon any adult member of his family. The builder has failed to prove that Gita, who had allegedly received the demand notice, had any relation with the complainant or had authority to receive it. As soon as the reminder dated 19.01.2012 was served upon the complainant on 22.01.2012, he deposited the amount on 27.01.2012. In the absence of service of demand notice, the complainant cannot be held as the defaulter. Findings of State Commission in this respect does not suffer from any illegality. The complainant was entitled for Timely Payment Rebate, according to letter dated 26.03.2009 which was 10% of basic sale price. This amount has been illegally denied in statement of account dated 10.06.2013.

15.    So far as the compensation for delayed possession is concerned, the complainant has accepted part of the benefits given under the letter dated 26.03.2009 and is claiming remaining benefits. By this letter, mode of payment of the instalments were changed as “construction Linked Payment Plan”. The construction was started in May, 2009. After adjusting the amount till March, 2009 and the benefits given by the letter dated 26.03.2009, on it, the complainant was asked to deposit instalment some time in 2010. Demand notice dated 16.03.2012, shows that Terrace Floor Slab was completed at that time and demand notice dated 18.06.2012 shows that the builder had applied for issue of Occupation Certificate, which has been issued on 28.02.2013. Thereafter, final accounts of the buyers were prepared and possession was offered through letter dated 10.06.2013. Due to delay in starting construction payment schedule of the instalments was changed and to mete out suffering of the buyers, various benefits were provided. Delay in offering possession had occurred as construction could not be started for more than one year of booking. If the buyers were required to payment instalments on later dates than the dates fixed in the agreement, then how it can be expected that the possession could be given within three years of the agreement. In the circumstances, the builder was justified in not giving compensation for delayed possession in the statement of account dated 10.06.2013.

16.    However, as we found that the complainant was entitled for “Timely Payment Rebate” as such statement of the account dated 10.06.2013 and demand on its basis was illegal. In such circumstances we direct the builder to pay 6% p.a. interest on the amount deposited by the complainant toward basic sale price, as compensation for delay in possession from July 2013 till date of offer of possession as directed by Supreme Court in Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan Vs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd., (2020) 16 SCC 512. 

17.    In the application dated 15.12.2018, the builder has calculated “Timely Payment Rebate” as Rs.4,02,076/-. Statement of account dated 10.06.2013 shows that “Early Payment Rebate” of Rs.95,136/- was mentioned in it while Early Payment Rebate was Rs.9059/- (i.e. 13% p.a interest on the amount above 35% of the sale price) as mentioned in the letter dated 23.06.2009. There appears some mistake in this respect. The builder is entitled to correct it.

18.    Cause-12 of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement dated 03.12.2008, provides that the allottee shall be liable to pay Maintenance Charges, from the date of grant of Occupation Certificate to the concerned authority. Clause-13 provides that in case the allottee commits delay in taking possession after offer of the possession, then it shall be liable to pay charges @ Rs.5/- per Sq. ft. of the Super Area per month for any delay of full one month or any part thereof in taking possession, for the entire period of delay. However, in the present case, we found that at the time of offering possession on 10.06.2013, correct statement of account was not provided to the complainant as such apart from maintenance charges the builder is not entitled to recover any other charges.

O R D E R

19.    In view of aforementioned discussions First Appeal No. 1530 of 2019 is partly allowed and First Appeal No. 1638 of 2019 is partly allowed. DLF Home Developers Ltd., (the builder) is directed to (i) offer possession of the apartment in dispute to the complainant afresh and hand over possession to the complainant within 6 weeks and execute the sale/conveyance deed in his name, within one month thereafter, on payment of stamp duty, registration charges and other incidental legal charges, (ii) pay compensation for delay in possession, i.e. interest @ Rs.6%- per annum on the sale price deposited by him for the delayed period from July, 2013 till the date of fresh offer of possession, adjusting “Early Payment Rebate” of Rs.95,136/- as mentioned in statement of account dated 10.06.2013 and (iii) pay “Timely Payment Rebate” i.e 10% of basic sale price. The builder is entitled to realise/adjust the Maintenance charges, from the date of issue of Occupation Certificate and cost of increased area (i.e the area increasing to 5% of the increased area). The builder shall pay a cost of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant to meet out his litigation and other expenses.