AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Tarun Rana, Advocate, for the complainants.
Ashok Kumar Taneja and Ms. Anita Taneja have filed above complaint for directing the opposite party to (i) pay Rs.50255913/- with pendente lite and future interest; (ii) pay Rs.1000000/-, as compensation for mental agony and harassment; (iii) pay Rs.300000/-, as the costs of litigation; and (iv) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
The complainants stated that Golden Peacock Residence Private Limited (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 and selling its unit to the prospective buyers. The opposite party launched a group housing project, in the name of “Michael Schumacher World Tower” at village Babupur, Sector-109, Gurgaon in the year 2012 and made wide publicity of its facilities and amenities giving rosy pictures. Believing upon the representations of the opposite party, the complainants booked a flat on 27.06.2012 and deposited booking amount of Rs.2500000/-. As per demand, the complainants deposited Rs.5/- lacs on 21.08.2012 and Rs.30/- lacs on 07.09.2012. The opposite party, vide Allotment Letter dated 26.11.2012, allotted Unit No.1003, admeasuring 3975 sq.ft. As per demand, the complainants deposited Rs.5254294/- on 21.02.2013 and 26.02.2013. The opposite party executed Flat Buyer’s Agreement dated 26.02.2013. Clause-12(a) of the agreement provides that possession will be offered within 36 months from the date of execution of the agreement with grace period of six months. As per demand, the complainants deposited Rs.2750000/- on 18.04.2013, Rs.2662225/- on 14.06.2013, Rs.4717824/- on 23.06.2014, Rs.3894057/- on 20.10.2014, Rs.3894056/- on 04.03.2015, Rs.133071/- as TDS and Rs.5412225/- was transferred/adjusted around June, 2013 from other booking of the complainants with Homestead Infrastructure Development Pvt. Ltd. (a sister concern of the opposite party) i.e. total Rs.29305527/- out of total consideration of Rs.39051200/-. Due date of possession expired on 27.08.2016 but recent photographs shows that the project was far away from completion as out of 29 proposed floors, only 9 floors were constructed. The complainants tried to talk with Managing Director of the opposite party, but were not allowed. Then this complaint was filed on 01.08.2017, alleging deficiency in service.
In spite of service of the notice of the complaint, the opposite party did not file its written reply nor put appearance. The opposite party was proceeded exparte vide order dated 16.04.2019. The complainants filed Affidavit of Evidence of Ashok Kumar Taneja, documentary evidence and written submission.
We have considered the arguments of the counsel for complainants and examined the record. Due date of possession expired on 27.08.2016 but photographs taken at the time of filing of the complaint shows that the project was far away from completion as out of 29 proposed floors, only 9 floors were constructed. The opposite party has realized about 75% of the consideration till March, 2015. Relevant facts are proved from documentary evidence and affidavit of evidence. 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. Govindan 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.
ORDER
In view of the aforesaid discussions, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund entire amount deposited by the complainant with interest @9% per annum from the date of respective deposit till the date of refund, within a period of two months from the date of this judgment.