IMPORTANT POINT
Justice delayed is not only Justice denied, it is also Justice circumvented, Justice mocked and system of Justice undermined.

J.M. Malik, Presiding Member—The arguments and the written submissions are contrary to the oral submissions made by the learned counsel for the Complainants. Counsel for the Opposite Parties has also not filed the written arguments, as prayed. Counsel for the Complainants is directed to explain, how all the Complainants are having the similar interest. He argued that the money be refunded but in the written submissions, they have requested that possession of flat be given to Daizy Rani and her son.

Put up for clarification on 7.12.2015.

Dated: 7.12.2015

ORDER (ORAL)

J.M. Malik, Presiding Member—This order shall decide the above mentioned three complaints, which are between the same Builder OP and the various allotees/consumers. The facts of these cases are almost same and the same point of Law is involved. M/s MVL Limited OP-the Builder floated a scheme in the year 2006 and aggressively marketed the said project promising high living luxury apartments, specially designed Swimming Pool, 24 hour power back up, Modular Kitchen, Covered Car Parking, Garden, Play Area, Security Club house, Rain Water Harvesting, Wi-fi Internet, Gymnasium etc. All the 17 complainants applied for the flats jointly or individually and paid the earnest money on the dates mentioned below:-

2. All the complainants booked the flats. They paid different amounts upto 65% of the total cost. It was agreed that the possession of their flats would be handed over, upto 31st December 2010 or the dates mentioned in their respective agreements, approximately 4 years after the initial booking.

3. This is an indisputable fact that the three allottees have already got the possession, namely, Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta and Sh. Nishank Gupta. The other remaining complainants have not got the possession, till the institution of these cases in years 2012 and 2014. It is contented that the Opposite Party indulged in unfair trade practices for deceiving the complainants.

4. It was also argued that the OP had changed its original plans and increased the number of floors, flooring area, ratio and density per acre. It has caused inordinate delay in completion of said projects. It has changed zoning plans, usage pattern, super area, carpet area and alteration of structures. This is an indisputable fact that the OP, of its own accord, arbitrarily and despotically, without seeking the consent of the allottees, has changed the tower number. This is deficiency on its part. The consumers cannot be compelled to accept the flats according to the sweet choice of the OP. The choice of OP cannot be imposed upon the consumers. It would be worst kind of highhandedness on the part of the OP. It is contended that the OP issued a new demand letter stating that it was charging similar sized flat of 1565 sq.Ft. to 1800 sq.ft., but the OP illegally demanded the allotted superficial increase in the area. Succinctly stated, the complainants have prayed that their amounts be refunded.

5. Opposite Party has contested all these cases. The counsel for the OP vehemently argued that the Opposite Party should be given 9 months’ time to obtain the occupation certificate. He vehemently argued