AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Nitin Chandran, Advocate, for the complainants and Mr. Rohit Gupta, Advocate, for the opposite party.
Sachin Parti and Shefali Parti (the complainants) have filed above complaint, for directing the opposite party to (i) refund Rs.6051999/- with interest @18% per annum, from the date of respective payment till the date of refund, (ii) to pay Rs.5/- as the compensation for mental agony and harassment, (iii) to pay Rs.2/- lacs as cost of the litigation; and (iv) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
The complainants stated that Ansal Crown Infrabuild 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 projects and selling its units to the prospective buyers. The opposite party launched a group housing project, in the name of “Ansal Crown Heights” at Sector-80, Faridabad, in the year 2012 and made wide publicity of the rosy pictures of the project and the amenities. One Rajnish Tandon and Smt. Kamal Tandon (the predecessors-in-interest of the complainants) booked one 3BHK flat on 20.11.2012 and deposited booking amount. The opposite party allotted Flat No.103, Tower-4, approx. super area 1788 sq.ft. in project “Ansal Crown Heights”, vide allotment letter dated 24.11.2012 to them. In the meantime, Rajnish Tandon and Smt. Kamal Tandon transferred the above flat to the complainants on 17.11.2012. The opposite party acknowledged the transfer of Flat No.103, Tower-4 approx. super area 1788 sq.ft. in project “Ansal Crown Heights”, for Rs.2541824/-, vide letter dated 23.11.2012. The opposite party also issued a receipt dated 24.11.2012 of the above amount to the complainants. The opposite party executed Apartment Buyer’s Agreement dated 14.12.2012, in favour of the complainants, in respect of Flat No.103, Tower-4, approx. super area 1788 sq.ft. @ Rs.3300/- per sq.ft. basic sale price of Rs.5900400/- in project “Ansal Crown Heights”. Payment Plan was “Construction Link Payment Plan”. As per demand, the complainants further deposited Rs.595742/- on 03.05.2013, Rs.596107/- on 04.08.2014, Rs.596106/- on 06.10.2014, Rs.596107/- on 19.01.2015, Rs.378642/- on 23.03.2015, Rs.149818/- on 25.03.2015, Rs.248236/- on 02.06.2015, Rs.49817/- on 03.06.2015, Rs.89600/- on 21.12.2015 and Rs.210000/- on 21.12.2015. Clause-4 of the agreement provides that possession would be handed over within 36 months from the date of execution of the agreement. Due date of possession expired on 14.12.2015 but the opposite party failed to complete the project and offer possession to the complainants. The complainants used to inquire about possession from time to time. But all the times the opposite party used to give some tentative date but failed to meet deadline. The complainants vide an email dated 04.12.2016, required to know about the exact time for offer of possession, but it was not responded. The complaint was filed on 19.03.2018, alleging deficiency in service.
The opposite party filed its reply on 03.08.2018 and contested the complaint. The material facts relating to the project, allotment/ transfer of the flat, execution of Apartment Buyer’s Agreement dated 14.12.2012 and deposits made by the complainants have not been disputed. The opposite party stated that Clause-4 of the agreement was subject to timely payments of the instalments and force majeure reasons. Directorate of Town and Country Planning took unreasonable time in renewal of Licence No.226 of 2007 dated 18.09.2007, for which application was moved on 19.10.2009 and renewal was granted on 12.03.2013. Then again application for renewal was moved on 21.09.2017 and granted on 30.04.2018. The building plan, initially sanctioned was valid till 07.12.2014, which was revalidated on 26.06.2015. The construction work was assigned to M/s. CRS Infra Projects Limited vide letter of intent dated 14.03.2011, who agreed to complete the construction within 24 months. M/s. CRS Infra Projects Limited raised various disputes as such its assignment was cancelled and new letter of intent dated 05.11.2012 was executed in favour of M/s. Pyarelal Harisingh Builders Pvt. Ltd. Then M/s. CRS Infra Projects Limited started creating hindrance in the work of new contractor. Thereafter, the opposite party granted construction contract to M/s. Radha Laxman Contracts on 31.01.2013. Majority of the allottees committed default in payment of instalments and about Rs.120105488/- had become due. The opposite party applied for a loan of Rs.20/- crores from Vijaya Bank, which was rejected on 16.08.2016. Out of total 10 towers, the construction was started for 8 towers and completed construction of 4 towers, possession in which would be handed over till December, 2018. Directorate of Town and Country Planning demanded Rs.10.5 crores as an additional demand of Enhanced External Development Charges, which has been challenged before High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Force majeure reasons stated above require extension of the period of 36 months as provided in the agreement. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The complainants filed Rejoinder Reply on 04.02.2019, in which, the facts stated in the complaint were reiterated. The complainants filed Affidavit of Evidence of Sachin Parti and Affidavit of Admission/Denial of documentary evidence. By order dated 25.01.2019, the opposite party was granted time for filing evidence. The opposite party was given last opportunity on 06.02.2020, but did not file evidence. The complainants filed written synopsis.
We have considered the arguments of the parties and examined the record. The opposite party executed Apartment Buyer’s Agreement dated 14.12.2012, in favour of the complainants, in respect of Flat No.103, Tower-4, approx. super area 1788 sq.ft. @ Rs.3300/- per sq.ft. basic sale price of Rs.5900400/- in project “Ansal Crown Heights”. Payment Plan was “Construction Link Payment Plan”. As per demand, the complainants deposited total Rs.6051999/- till 21.12.2015. Due date of possession expired on 14.12.2015. The opposite party has stated that construction of Tower Nos.7, 8, 9 and 10 were completed. As such, it is admitted construction of tower-4 has not been completed till today. Supreme Court in Banglore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank, (2007) 6 SCC 442, Fortune Infrastructure Vs. Trevor D’Lima, (2018) 5 SCC 442 and Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Devasis Rudra, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 438, held that a home buyer cannot be made to wait for possession of the flat for indefinite period.
ORDER
In view of aforesaid discussions, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund entire amount deposited by the complainants, including the amount deposited by their predecessors-in-interest, with interest @9% per annum from the date of respective deposit till the date of payment, within a period of two months from the date of this judgment.