AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard counsel for both the parties.
Above complaint has been filed for directing the opposite party to (i) pay interest @ 18% per annum on the total deposit of the complainant of Rs.5553681/-, (ii) pay compensation of Rs.10/- lacs for delay in providing the amenities, (iii) complete the project, hand over possession of the apartment allotted to the complainants and execute Sale Deed, (iv) pay Rs.2/- lacs towards failure to provide modular kitchen, (v) pay Rs.10/- lacs as damages for mental agony and harassment, (vi) pay Rs.one lac as litigation cost, (vii) bear increased registration charges due to delay in completing the project and (viii) other relief which may deem fit and proper in the facts of the case.
The complainants stated that Mantri Developers Pvt. Ltd. (opposite party-1) was a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and Mr. Sushil Mantri (opposite party-2) was its Managing Director. They were engaged in the business of development and construction of group housing project. The opposite parties launched a project in the name of ‘Mantri Webcity’ at Nagareshwara Nagenahalli and Kothanur Villages, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk in the year 2013 and made vide publicity relating to its amenities and facilities. The complainants were in need of a residence and believing upon the representation of the opposite parties, applied for an apartment and deposited the booking amount in the year 2013. The opposite parties, vide letter dated 31.08.2013, informed that they were allotted Unit no. APH-1307 in the project ‘Mantri Webcity’ and also offered a modular kitchen with the purchase of the said unit. Subsequently, the opposite parties executed an agreement to sell of an undivided share in the land and another agreement for construction on 11.09.2013. In Annexure B1 of the construction Agreement, the date of possession has been mentioned as 31.01.2015. The complainants opted for subvention scheme, in which, they had to pay part of the sale consideration and remaining sale consideration had to be financed by the Axis Bank and the opposite parties undertook to pay pre-EMIs till the offer of possession i.e. 31.01.2015. Inspite of the full payment, the opposite parties failed to handover possession of the apartment, complete in all respects as per specifications on due date. The opposite parties issued a letter dated 30.06.2016 and called upon to the complainants to take fit-out possession and do interior work in the apartment. Thereafter, the complainants, at their cost, did interior work of the apartment. The possession was taken on 01.07.2017. Even before completion of the project, the sale deed was executed in favour of the complainants on 09.12.2015. Now there is dispute in respect of delayed compensation and other consequential reliefs.
The opposite party filed its written reply on 05.07.2018 and contested the complaint in which the material facts relating to booking, allotment of flat, execution of Agreements dated 09.11.2013 in favour of the complainants and payments have not been disputed. The opposite parties admitted that some delay has taken place in completion of the construction which was completed in June 2016 and the allottees were offered to take fit-out possession. Thereafter, the completion certificate was obtained on 29.05.2017. Since the possession has been delivered in June 2016, all the allottees are occupying their apartments. Title deeds have already been executed.
The complainants filed rejoinder reply on 26.10.2018 and Affidavit of Evidence of Natasha Miranda, co-allottee. The opposite parties filed Affidavit of Evidence of Girish Gupta H.S. Both the parties filed their short synopsis of arguments.
We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties. The completion certificate was obtained on 29.05.2017 therefore, possession can be legally delivered by the opposite parties prior to it. In such circumstances, date of possession, as stated by the complainants, would be 01.07.2017. As per construction agreement, due date of possession was 31.01.2015. The complainants are entitled for compensation for delayed possession for the period of February, 2015 to June, 2017, in the form of interest @6% per annum on their deposit. Supreme Court in R.V. Prasannakumaar & Ors. Vs. Mantri Castles Private Limited & Anr., (2020) 14 SCC 769 held that delayed compensation would be payable in the form of interest @ 6% per annum on the deposit made by the complainant. The counsel for the opposite parties submits that the opposite parties had paid pre-EMIs after 31.01.2015. If the opposite parties have paid pre-EMI after 31.01.2015, then the opposite parties would be entitled to adjust it.
So far as the claim of the complainants in respect of the damages for not providing modular kitchen is concerned, we are not satisfied that it was a free offer. It was merely an offer and if the complainants would have opted for it, they would be charged for the same. Therefore, no damages are liable to be paid in this respect.
The counsel for the complainants submits that till today, the opposite party has not been provided regular water connection from the Municipal Department. Admittedly, the opposite parties are supplying water through tankers, but they are liable to provide regular water connection, as per specification in the agreement.
ORDER
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties are directed to pay delayed compensation in the form of interest @ 6% per annum on the deposit of the complainants from February 2015 to June 2017. The opposite parties will be entitled to adjust pre-EMIs paid after 31.01.2015 to the bank. If the regular water connection has not been provided, then the opposite parties will provide it within four months from today. If the opposite parties have not handed over complete set of keys to the complainants, it shall be handed over forthwith.