Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
Anil Arora and Anr.—Complainants
versus
M/s. IREO Victory Valley Pvt. Ltd.—Opp. Party
Consumer Case No.981 of 2016
Decided on 11.11.2019
For the Complainant:Mr. Swaty Singh Malik and Ms. Parnita, Advocates
For the Opp. Party:Mr. P. Vinay Kumar, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Whether the opposite party was unable to commence construction for want of the final fire safety clearance.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Complaint—Section 21—Complainants husband & wife—Allotment of residential flat—Possession not delivered—Purpose behind giving time—Period 36 months—Money not deposited—Within the time granted—Complain allowed. (Para 2, 5, 6)
Result: Complaint Allowed.
ORDER
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
The complainants who are husband and wife applied to the OP for the allotment of a residential flat in a project, namely, ‘Ireo Victory Valley’, which the opposite parties were developing in Sector-67 of Gurgaon. Vide allotment letter dated 13.9.2010, flat No.A-0503 in the above-referred project was allotted to them for a total sale price of Rs.20083200/-. The parties then executed an agreement on 20.9.2010, incorporating their respective obligations. The price of the flat was to be paid in installments linked with stage of construction. The said payment plan reads as under:-
| “Linked Stages | Basic Sale Price % | Others | Basic | Others | Total |
| At the time of booking | 9.61% |
| 1929870.00 |
| 1929870.00 |
| Within 45 days of booking | 9.61% |
| 1929870.00 |
| 1929870.00 |
| On commencement of exaction | 7.60% | 50% EDC | 1525852.50 | 513015.93 | 2038868.43 |
| Casting of Basement Roof slab | 7.60% | 50% EDC | 1525852.50 | 513015.93 | 2038868.43 |
| Casting of 1st Floor Roof slab | 7.60% | 50% IDC | 1525852.50 | 42598.35 | 1568450.85 |
| Casting of 9th Floor Roof slab | 7.60% | 50% IDC | 1525852.50 | 42598.35 | 1568450.85 |
| Casting of 18th Floor Roof slab | 7.60% | 50% Parking | 1525852.50 | 350000.00 | 1875852.50 |
| Casting of 27th Floor Roof slab | 7.60% | 50% Parking | 1525852.50 | 350000.00 | 1875852.50 |
| Casting of 36th Floor Roof slab | 7.60% |
| 1525852.50 |
| 1525852.50 |
| Casting of 45th Floor Roof slab | 7.60% |
| 1525852.50 |
| 1525852.50 |
| Casting of top Floor Roof slab | 7.60% |
| 1525852.50 |
| 1525852.50 |
| On completion of Stone/Tile |
|
|
|
|
|
| Flooring in Apartment | 7.60% |
| 1525852.50 |
| 1525852.50 |
| On offer of possession | 4.80% | RFMS | 964935.00 | 313800.00 | 1278735.00 |
| Total | 100% |
| 20083200.00 | 2125028.56 | 22208228.56” |
2. Clause 13.3 of the Agreement pertains to delivery of possession of the flat and reads as under:-
“13.3. Subject to Force Majeure, as defined herein and further subject to the Allottee having complied with all its obligations under the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the Allottee not being in default under any part of this Agreement including but not limited to the timely payment of the total Sale Consideration, Stamp Duty and other charges and also subject to the Allottee having complied with all formalities or documentation as prescribed by the Company, the Company proposes to hand over the possession of the said Apartment to the Allottee within a period of 36 months from the date of approval of the Building Plans and/or fulfillment of the preconditions imposed thereunder (“Commitment Period”). The Allottee further agrees and understands that the Company shall additionally be entitled to a period of 180 (One Hundred and Eighty) days (“Grace Period”), after the expiry of the said Commitment Period to allow for unforeseen delays in obtaining the Occupation Certificate etc., from the DTCP under the Act, in respect of the IREO-Victory Valley Project.”
3. The complainant made payment of Rs.21576634/- on different dates, the last payment having been made on 25.2.2016.
4. The possession having not been delivered to them despite they having paid more than Rs.2 crores, the complainants are before this Commission seeking refund of the said amount alongwith compensation etc.
5. The complaint was resisted by the OP. In its reply, the OP has admitted the allotment made to the complainants as well as the payment received from them. The complaint has been resisted primarily on the ground that there is no unreasonable delay in offering possession to the complainants since the possession has been offered during pendency of this complaint on 15.11.2017. This is also the case of the OP that the time period for of
