Apartment Buyers Consumer Association vs M/s Dreamz Infra India Pvt. Ltd.

Heard counsel for the complainant. The opposite party was served through publication of notice in newspaper on 14.01.2019 but the opposite party did not file written reply in the matter. Right to file written reply of the opposite party was closed vide order dated 18.03.2019.

Apartment Buyers Consumer Association, the complainant has filed the above complaint on behalf of 132 home buyers of the project ‘Dreamz Samhita’ for directing the opposite party to (i) refund the amount deposited by the members of the complainant with interest @18% per annum to each of the members; (ii) pay Rs.50000/- to each of the members of the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment; (iii) pay Rs.10000/- per month to each of the members of the complainant as cost incurred towards rent paid by the complainant due to delay in delivery of possession from the due date of possession till the payment; and (iv) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts of the case.

The complainant stated that M/s Dreamz Infra India Ltd. (the opposite party) was a company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of development and construction of group housing project. The opposite party launched a project in the name of ‘Dreamz Samhita’ at Kothanur Village, (presently known as Puttenahalli Village), Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South, Bangalore Urban District, in the year 2012 and made wide publicity of its facilities and amenities. Believing upon the representation of the opposite party, members of the complainant association booked flats in the project between the year 2012 to 2014.  The opposite party issued allotment letter in favour of the members of the complainant and shortly thereafter, executed agreement for sale and construction agreement, between the year 2013 to 2014.  Vide clause 4 of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 11.10.2014, the construction has to be completed within 20 months from the date of MoU.  There are different periods in respect of different flat buyers and the period ranges between 18 to 24 months from the execution of the MoU and in all the cases, the period has expired in 2016. The opposite party however, is not proceeding with the project. The members of the complainant have deposited 80% to 90% of the sale consideration. Inspite of the fact that the maximum period of 24 months has already expired in the year 2016-2017 in all the cases, the opposite party has failed to deliver possession to the complainants.  The complainants have filed Affidavit of Evidence of Mr. S.L. Sreedhara Murthy and proved the facts stated in the complaint.

I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the complainant.  The facts stated by the complaint have been proved by the affidavit of Mr. S.L. Sreedhara Murthy and there is no denial of the allegation nor there is any rebuttal on the record. Some of the MoUs and receipts relating to payments made by the members of complainant have also been filed to prove the allegations of the complaint. Although different period for possession in respect of different flat buyers are given which ranges between 18 to 24 months from the execution of the MoU but in all the cases, the period has expired in 2016-2017. Inspite of the fact that the members of the complainants have made more than 80% payment till 2016, but there is no hope that they will take possession of the flat allotted to them. A home buyer cannot be made to wait for possession, for unlimited period.

ORDER

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed with cost of Rs.100000/-. The opposite party is directed to refund the entire amount deposited by the members of the complainant association with interest @9% per annum from the date of respective deposit till the date of refund, within a period of two months to each of the members of the complainant.