IMPORTANT POINT
Jurisdiction of a Consumer Forum has been upheld to entertain the complaint even in respect of projects covered under RERA.

ORDER (ORAL)

V.K. Jain, Presiding Member.—The complainants booked a residential flat in a project namely ‘Ramprastha Skyz’ which the OPs were to develop in Sector-37D of Gurgaon. On allotment of a residential flat in the aforesaid project to them, they executed an Apartment Buyers Agreement with both the OPs on 13.09.2011, incorporating the respective rights and obligations of the parties in respect of the said transaction. The price of the flat was agreed at Rs.88,92,282/-. As per clause 15(a) of the Agreement, the possession was to be delivered to the complainants by 31.08.2014. The possession having not been offered to them despite they having paid Rs.80,03,055/-, the complainants are before this Commission seeking refund of the aforesaid amount with compensation etc.

2. The complaint has been resisted by the OPs on several grounds. The allotment made to the complainants, the agreement executed with them and the payment received from them have however, been admitted. In its written version, the OP No.1 has interalia stated that the delay in completion of the project has happened on account of the circumstances beyond its control and it is not only the complainants, they are also suffering on account of the delay, they having invested the entire amount received from the complainants in the project. The delay is sought to be justified primarily on the following grounds:

(a) There was delay in receiving approval from different authorities.

(b) There was shortage of labour in the market due to schemes such as NREGA and JNNURM.

(c) The OP faced acute shortage of water since the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, vide its order dated 16.07.2012, prohibited the use of ground water for construction purpose and directed use of only the filtered water from sewerage treatment plants.

(d) There was shortage of building material in the market on account of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, SLP Civil Number 19628-29 of 2009 and connected matters.

(e) Govt. of India announced the demonetization of high denomination currency notes in November 2016.

It is also stated in the written version that in the event of delay, the allottees are entitled to compensation @ Rs.5 per sq. ft. per month in terms of Section 17(a) of the Agreement.

3. In its written version, OP No.2 has pleaded that it was only a financer of the project and that it had executed the Apartment Buyers Agreement only with a view to recover its funding in the Joint Development Agreement. It is also claimed that OP No.2 was neither the owner of the land on which the flats were to be constructed nor was it liable for constructing the said flats.

4. The learned counsel for the complainants submits that the issues involved in this complaint are squarely covered by the decision of this Commission in Consumer Complaint No.2384 of 2017 Mohit Sharma & Anr. Vs. M/s Ramprastha Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. and Connected Matters decided on 01.05.2019. A perusal of the above referred decision would show that several Consumer Complaints pertaining to residential flats allotted in this very project were allowed by this Commission by way of the above referred common decision. In Mohit Sharma (supra), the allotment was made in this very project and the Apartment Buyers Agreement were executed with these very OPs. The possession having not been offered to them, the complainants approached this Commission seeking refund of the amount which they had paid for the flats alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and compensation. The complaint was opposed by both the OPs. OP No.1 opposed the complaints primarily on the grounds on which this complaint has been contested and the grounds included non-availability of cement, non-availability of water, etc. It was also pleaded that the allottees were entitled only to mutually agreed compensation of Rs.5 per sq. ft. per month of the super area of the flats.

5. A perusal of the decision would sho