IMPORTANT POINT
Builder is bound to honour its commitments.

Dev Raj, Member—The facts, in brief, are that the complainant purchased Unit No.CCC-03-003 in the project of the Opposite Party i.e. Ireo Rise, Mid Rise, Third Floor, Cassia Court, Block-C, Sector-99, Mohali, measuring approx. 1511 sq. ft. from one Surinder Pal Singh, to whom the said flat was allotted by the Opposite Party on 26.12.2011 vide allotment letter (Annexure C-3). An agreement to sell was also executed between the complainant and the original allottee on 15.09.2014 (Annexure C-1).

2. As per clause 13.3 of Apartment Buyer’s Agreement, which was executed between Sh. Surinder Pal Singh and the Opposite Party on 01.03.2012, physical possession of the unit, in question, was to be handed over by the Opposite Party within a period of 30 months from the date of execution of the Agreement i.e. by 26.06.2016 (in fact 31.08.2014) . The complainant made payments of Rs.46,62,780/- towards consideration of the unit, in question i.e. 95% of the total consideration amount of Rs.50 Lacs including basic price and other charges, as per receipts (Annexure C-5 colly.), by taking loan of Rs.40,00,000/- from HDFC Limited @9.70% p.a. interest and by selling jewellery, gold ornaments and even withdrawing all his life long savings.

3. It was further stated that for the delayed period in offering possession, the Opposite Party was liable to pay penalty @Rs.7.50 per sq. ft. per month. The complainant visited the site in January 2014 but was shocked to see that there was no progress in the project. He again visited the site in October 2014 but still there was no development. Again on visiting the site in the year 2015, the complainant found no development at the site. The complainant approached the Opposite Party a number of times to know about the status of delivery of possession of the flat but every time, the Opposite Party failed to give any positive response. It was stated that the Opposite Party has not applied for regular electricity connection with the government. It was further stated that even various amenities like solar water heating for kitchen, multipurpose hall, swimming pool, fully equipped Gym, badminton and basket ball courts, kids play area, jogging tracks, visitors car parking, intercom facility and CCTV camera, which were promised in the Agreement, have not been started at the project site. It was further stated that external development of the area where the flat, in question, is situated, had also not been completed by 2016.

4. It was further stated that the complainant put his grievance before the Opposite Party vide notice dated 04.04.2016 (Annexure C-6), which was duly replied by the Opposite Party vide letter dated 26.04.2016 (Annexure C-7) but the Opposite Party could not satisfy the query regarding handing over possession of the flat. It was further stated that the complainant is residing in a rented accommodation and is paying rent @ Rs.14,000/- per month, as per Bank Statement (Annexure C-8). It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party amounted to deficiency, in rendering service and indulgence into unfair trade practise.

5. Alleging deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practise, on the part of Opposite Party, the complainant filed the instant complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short 1986 Act) seeking directions to the Opposite Party to hand over physical possession of the flat, in question, complete in all respects, with all amenities as stipulated at the time of execution of the Agreement, within three months; pay rent @ Rs.14,000/- per month for the time stipulated to hand over the physical possession; pay penalty as per clause 13.7 of the Agreement; pay interest @15% p.a. on the deposited amount from the respective dates of deposits; pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.50,000/- as cost of litigation.

6. The Opposite Party, in its written statement, took-up certa