AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Saurabh Jain, Advocate, for the complainants, Mr. Rohit Gupta, Advocate, for the opposite party.
Tarun Sharma and Leena have filed above complaint for directing opposite party (i) to refund the amount of Rs.8687112/- with interest @18% per annum from the date of deposits till the date of payment or in alternative to complete the project in all respects and deliver possession of Flat No.1202 in Tower-1, super area 2606 sq.fts. in the project “Ansal Crown Heights” within 30 days and pay compensation in the form of interest @18% per annum on the deposit of the complainants for the delayed period; (ii) pay Rs.200000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment; (iii) pay Rs.44000/- as cost 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 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 “Ansal Crown Heights”, at Sector 80, Faridabad, in the year 2012 and made wide publicity of its amenities and facilities. Believing upon the representations of the opposite party, the complainants booked a flat on 17.11.2012 and deposited the booking amount. The opposite party issued Allotment Letter dated 17.11.2012 allotting Flat No.1202, super area 2606 sq.fts., Tower-1 and executed Flat Buyers’ Agreement in favour of the complainants on 30.11.2012, in which, total consideration of the flat was mentioned as Rs.9876476/-. The agreement contained payment plans. The complainants opted for “construction linked payment plan”. Clause 4 of the agreement provides 36 months period from the date of execution of the agreement for delivery of possession. As per demand of the opposite party, the complainants deposited Rs.1258100/- vide receipt dated 23.12.2012, Rs.817048/- vide receipt dated 20.03.2013, Rs.834070/- vide receipt dated 28.09.2013, Rs.834068/- vide receipt dated 16.12.2013, Rs.834069/- vide receipt dated 08.02.2014, Rs.752851/- vide receipt dated 13.05.2014, Rs.404534/- vide receipt dated 02.05.2014, Rs.12501/- vide receipt dated 04.09.2014, Rs.404534/- vide receipt dated 25.11.2014, Rs.12500/- vide receipt dated 25.11.2014, Rs.14158/- vide receipt dated 04.08.2015 and Rs.363645/- vide receipt dated 04.08.2015. Although the opposite party realized total Rs.8687112/- till 04.08.2015, but the construction was not completed nor possession was offered though the period of 36 months expired on 30.11.2015.The complainants visited the site and found that no construction was going on at the site. The complainants made several e-mails to the opposite party and sought for information in respect of progress of the project and date of delivery of possession, but the opposite party used to give evasive reply and some tentative date. The complainants, therefore, wrote an e-mails dated 02.04.2016 and 22.05.2017 asking to refund their money along with interest. In spite of service of e-mail, no reply has been given, then this complaint was filed on 19.07.2017.
The opposite party filed its written reply on 08.02.2018 in which booking of the flat by the complainants on 17.11.2012 and allotment of flat to them and execution Flat Buyers’ Agreement dated 30.11.2012 and deposits made by them, are not disputed. The opposite party stated that the license for development of the project consisting ten towers was issued by Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana in the year 2007 and it had got to be renewed time to time, but the statutory authority committed a delay of 1009 days in granting renewal of licence between 2007 to 2016. The building plan was also valid till 07.12,2014. Although the opposite party applied for its revalidation, but the statutory authority has taken 177 days in issuing the revalidation of the lay out plan. The opposite party has given contract for construction of the building to M/s. CRS Infra Projects Limited vide Letter of Intent dated 14.03.2011, but the contractor did not proceed with construction work, therefore, his contract was terminated on 21.04.2012 and a fresh contract in construction was given to M/s. Pyare Lal Hari Singh Builders Pvt. Ltd. on 05.11.2012. M/s. CRS Infra Projects Limited created hindrances in procuring the labour and materials by M/s. Pyare Lal Hari Singh Ltd. and it could also not proceed with the construction. Therefore, the opposite party terminated his contract and engaged a fresh Contractor M/s. Radha Laxaman Contracts on 31.01.2013. Many of the flat buyers had stopped payment of the instalments and approximately Rs.50/- crores was outstanding dues of the instalment, due to which the construction could not proceed with the required speed. The opposite party has completed 70% construction of Towers 1 to 4 and 95% construction of Towers 5 to 8. The opposite party has procured finances from India Bulls, IHFL, Punjab National Bank and Vijaya Bank and was trying to complete the construction. Clause 4 of the agreement was subject to timely payment of the instalments and other force majeure reasons. The opposite party is entitled for extension of period for which the renewal of the license and revalidation of the lay out plan was delayed as well as contractors engaged by the opposite party have delayed the construction. The opposite party is trying to complete the construction and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The complainants filed Rejoinder Reply, Affidavit of Evidence, Affidavit of Admission/Denial of documentary evidence of Tarun Sharma. The opposite party filed Affidavit of Evidence and Affidavit of Admission/Denial of Ranjeev Kalia and documentary evidence. Both the parties have filed their short synopsis of arguments.
We have considered the arguments of counsel for the parties and examined the record. The complainants booked the flat on 17.11.2012 and Flat Buyers’ Agreement was executed on 30.11.2012. Out of total sale consideration of Rs.9876476/- the complainants has deposited total Rs.8687112/- till 04.08.2015. Clause 4 of the agreement provides 36 months period from the date of execution of the agreement for delivery of possession. The period of 36 months expired on 30.11.2015, but the construction has not been completed nor the opposite party has obtained occupancy certificate till today.
The opposite party has raised plea of force majeure i.e. statutory authority has delayed renewal of license for a period of 1009 days and revalidation of lay out plan for a period of 177 days. The opposite party has not stated as to whether the renewal application has been filed within time. Secondly, after execution of the agreement renewal was issued on 12.03.2013, 07.02.2014 and 13.10.2016 and revalidation of lay out plan was issued on 26.06.2015, as such, after the agreement there is nothing on record that the statutory Authority had committed delay in granting the renewal as well as revalidation of lay out plan. So far the dispute with regard to the contractor is concerned, the last contract was given by the builder on 31.01.2013 while, the agreement was executed on 30.11.2012. Thus, there is hardly 45 days delay after execution of agreement, due to dispute with the contractors, therefore, the force majeure reason as pleaded by the opposite party does not explain the total delay caused in completing construction and obtaining occupation certificate which is more than seven years as on today. The complainants cannot be mad to wait for unlimited period for possession.
ORDER
In the result, the complaint succeeds and is allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund entire money deposited by the complainants 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.