AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subhash Chandra, Member
The present complaint is a joint complaint on behalf of allottees/ buyers of built up units in the Hi-tech green township called ‘Megapolis Green Hi Tech Township’ launched by the Opposite Party in Bulandshahar, adjoining Greater Noida, UP in 2007. The Complainants are a group of buyers of built up residential units in a project promoted by the Opposite Party which was launched in 2007 Possession of the flats has not been offered by the Opposite Party to the Complainants so far even after 10 years of the booking date. The Complainants have paid varying amounts to the Opposite Party in respect of the flats booked and have a common grievance of getting a full refund of this money along with compensation. For the sake of convenience, the facts of the case of Complainant No 1 are being considered as representative of the other complainants.
The facts of the case are that in response to the promotional efforts of the Opposite Party/Builder, the complainants applied for allotment of residential flats in the project ‘Megapolis Green Hi Tech Township’ in Bulandshahar, adjoining Greater Noida, UP in 2007. Following the acceptance of application/booking forms for flats on various dates from the complainants, the OP entered into a Builder Buyer’s Agreement with them after a period of 2 months to one year with the respective complainants. As per clause 4.1 of this Agreement, possession of the built-up units was to be handed over within 42 months of the signing of the agreement. However, despite a lapse of 10 years of booking of the flats, this has not happened. According to the complainants, this is due to the wilful delay of the OP. Despite several attempts by the buyers requesting to expedite the project, and despite the OP’s letter dated 22.07.2011 clarifying that the project was not covered by orders of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court relating to compulsory acquisition of land resulting in farmers agitations. On 26.04.2016, the OP had conveyed through a letter its inability to give possession due to unforeseen circumstances, agitations/ hindrances by locals/ farmers and instead offered alternate units in other locations.
On grounds of unfair trade practices and deficiency in service, the complainants are before this Commission with the following prayer:
a. Direct the Opposite Party to refund to the allottees, the entire amounts paid by the allottees to the opposite party towards their built up units, along with compensation in the form of interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of making payments till the date of actual realisation, along with pendent lite and future interest at the same rate or such higher rate of interest which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit in the interest of justice;
a. Grant a sum of Rs.5.00 lakh to each allottee towards mental agony and damages due to the arbitrary acts of the opposite party as detailed above in the complaint;
a. Grant cost of litigation to each of the allottees;
a. Any other order, relief or direction which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the allottees and against the opposite party .
By an order dated 08.06.2018, this Commission allowed an application moved by the learned Counsel for the Complainants and granted permission to pursue the complaint as a class action under Section 12 (1) (c ) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Pursuant to this order, a public notice in two newspapers having circulation in Delhi/ NCR was published following which several allottees filed impleading applications.
The complaint has been resisted by the OP during hearings. However, he has neither filed a rejoinder or an affidavit in evidence, despite several opportunities and imposition of cost of Rs.30,000/-. Finally, on 01.09.2021 the request for another adjournment by the opposite party turned down and the final arguments of the complainant heard, closing the right of the OP to file arguments.
The Opposite Party has also neither filed any affidavit evidence nor written submissions. It is not known whether any Occupancy Certificate has been obtained or an offer of possession made to the allottee - Complainants. It has however, continued to receive deposits from the Complainants and after initially assuring the allottees that there was no obstacle on the land related front for the project, only offered alternative units in projects located at far distances in other cities, citing the same reasons of obstruction and delay. The OP has also not provided any evidence in supportof its contention that there was a default of payment by the complainant towards the unit booked by him.
We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also carefully perused the records. Complainant have filed affidavit in evidence and written arguments. It has also been argued that the case stands covered by this Commission’s orders in CC no. 1951 of 2016 – Bhrigu Kaushik and Ors vs M/s Ansal Hi Tech Township Ltd., wherein a similar project in the same location was delayed and led to a class action suit. This Commission had held in the case cited supra , after referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd., vs Govindan Raghavan and connected matter (2019) 5 SCC 725 and in Kolkata West International City Pvt., Ltd., vs Dewasis Rudra II (2019) CPJ 29 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that “ the flat purchasers cannot be made to wait for inordinate period of time hoping to seek possession and that refund of amounts deposited is a valid redressal”.
The present case relates to the project ‘Megapolis Green Hi Tech Township’ while the case cited by the Complainant relates to ‘Ansals Hi Tech Township Ltd.’ The facts, however, are identical in that they relate to the same builder’s project of a township in the same locality which was covered by the same issues of land acquisition, court cases and offer of alternate flats in projects promoted by the same builder although at different locations. Complainant relies on this as a similar case.
For the aforesaid reasons, we are inclined to accept the contentions and arguments of the complainant and to dispose off the complaint with the following directions:
a. The OP shall refund the entire amount received from the respective complainants along with compensation of simple interest @ 12% per annum from the date of respective deposits till the date of refund;
b. Litigation cost of Rs.25,000/- to each complainant;
c. Compliance of this order to be done within 3 months of the receipt of the order failing which penal interest @ 15% will be paid for the period of delay;
d. This order will be limited to only those complainants before this Commission who have not settled the matter with the OP as on the date of the order.