Resident of 3647/D-3, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi - 110 070
Through its Managing Director, Signature Towers, Ground Floor, NH-8, South City - I,
2. M/s. Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd.,
Through Its Managing Director, Registered Office, A-22, 3rd Floor, Green Park, Aurbindo Marg,
New Delhi - 110 016.


For the Complainant :
Mr. Sushil Kaushik, Advocate
Ms. Himanshi Singh, Advocate
For the Opp.Party :
Mrs. Navneet S. Sehgal, Advocate
Dr. Shweta Bajaj, Advocate

Dated : 04 Jan 2017

The complainants who are husband and wife booked a residential flat with the opposite party in a project namely Fresco, Nirvana Country which the said opposite party was to develop in Gurgaon. Vide letter dated 10.1.2007, Flat No.0601 in Block No.15 of the aforesaid project was allotted to the complainant for a total consideration of Rs.88,29,930/-. The aforesaid allotment was followed by execution of a Buyers Agreement between the parties on 6.3.2007. As per clause 4.a of the said agreement, the possession was proposed to be delivered to the complainant within 36 months, subject to force majure circumstances beyond the control of the developer. Clause 4.e of the agreement provided for refund in full with interest @ 10% p.a. without any further liability to pay damages if the developer for any reason was not able to offer the apartment. The complainants have already paid a sum of Rs.82,16,203/- but  the possession of the flat has not been delivered to them. Being aggrieved, they are before this Commission seeking refund of the entire amount paid by them along with compensation in the form of interest @ 18% p.a. and additional compensation of Rs.10 lakhs for the mental agony and harassment caused to them.

2.      The complaint has been resisted by the opposite party on the grounds which this Commission has repeatedly rejected in a large number of consumer complaints. The OP, however, has not disputed the payment made by the complainants. It is also not in dispute that the possession of the flat has not been delivered so far.

3.      In Consumer Complaint No.13 of 2015 – Sumeet Singh Vs. M/s Unitech Ltd. & Anr. and several other connected complaints decided by this Commission on 18.1.2016, the complaints were resisted by the OPs on the grounds identical to the grounds taken by them in their written version to this complaint. Rejecting all those contentions and relying upon a number of its earlier decisions, this Commission directed delivery of possession of the flats to the complainants in Consumer Complaint No.13 of 2015 and Consumer Complaint No.15 of 2015 along with compensation in the form of simple interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. the expiry of the period stipulated in the buyers agreement/allotment letter for offering possession to them. For the sake of brevity, I am not reproducing the reasons given by this Commission while rejecting the grounds taken by the opposite party while resisting the said complaints.

4.      When this complaint came up for hearing on 20.9.2016, the learned counsel for the opposite parties stated that they had offered possession of the flat to the complainants vide letter dated 28.8.2015, during pendency of this complaint subject to payment of the outstanding amount. She further stated that the said flat was still available with them for being handed over to the complainants. In view of the said statement, the OPs were directed to deliver possession of the flat complete in all respects and in a habitable condition to the complainants within 45 days from the date of the said order subject to the complainants giving an undertaking to this Commission that they shall pay to the opposite parties such further amount, if any, as may be directed by this Commission. It was further ordered that the questions (i) as to what is the balance amount, if any, payable by the complainants to the OPs and (ii) whether the complainants are entitled to any compensation and if so to what amount, would be decided at the time of final hearing.

5.      When this matter came up for hearing on 22.11.2016, the learned counsel for the OPs stated that they had not obtained the Occupancy Certificate in respect of the aforesaid flat. Considering the statement, which the counsel had made on the previous date of hearing, the Managing Director of the OPs was directed to remain present to explain why the order passed by this Commission on 20.9.2016 had not been complied. The learned counsel appearing  for the OPs states that the Managing Director of OP-1, namely, Ajay Chandra is unwell and, therefore, not in a position to appear before this Commission. She, however, is unable to tell as to why the other Managing Director of OP-1, namely, Sanjay Chandra is not present. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the Occupancy Certificate of the flat in question having  not been obtained so far by the OPs,  the complainants cannot be compelled to keep on waiting for the OPs to obtain the said certificate and the complaint has to proceed on its merits. The learned counsel for the OPs wants it to place on record the information that the Occupancy Certificate was applied on 26.8.2015. She further submits that the Occupancy Certificate could not be issued since certain formalities are yet to be complied. However, no communication from the concerned Authority, notifying the reasons on account of which the Occupancy Certificate could not be issued, has not been filed by the OPs.

6.      Considering the current rates of interest, the complaint is disposed of with the following directions:-
  1. The OPs shall deliver possession of the flat in question to the complainants, complete in all respects and free from any defect, immediately after the Occupancy Certificate in respect of the said flat is received by it;
  2. The OPs shall pay compensation in the form of simple interest @ 8% p.a. from the committed date of possession till the date on which the possession in terms of this order is offered to them, to the complainants, while offering possession in terms of this order;
  3. The balance amount payable by the complainants after excluding the stamp duty shall be adjusted by the OPs while offering possession to the complainants in terms of this order. The stamp duty will be paid by the complainants directly to the concerned revenue authority;
  4. The opposite parties shall also pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation to the complainants.

Report Disclaimer Applies

कृपया प्रसार करें:

पिछला लेख
अगला लेख