IMPORTANT POINT
Allottees held entitled for compensation for delay in delivery of possession of flat in question.

ORDER

R.K. Agrawal, President.—The present Consumer Complaint has been filed under Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) against Ozone Projects Private Limited through its Managing Director, Mr. S. Vasudevan (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Builder’).

2. The facts of the case as enumerated in the Complaint are that in response to an advertisement of the Builder proposing to develop and sell Residential Apartments in their Project ‘The Metrozone’ located at Koyambedu, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as ‘Project’) and the assurance given by the Representative of the Builder that the Project would be ready for occupation by November, 2012, Mr. Haresh Bathija and his wife Kiran Dhameja (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Complainants’) purchased one Flat from the Builder in their Project for the use of his parents by availing Housing Loan from the HDFC Bank. An ‘Agreement for Sale’ was entered between the Parties on 30.11.2010 to purchase the Schedule D Property being an undivided share (UDS) of 564 sq.ft. in the Schedule C Property together with all other rights for a consideration of Rs.22,56,000/-. A Construction Agreement dated 30.11.2010 was also executed between the Parties for purchasing a Flat, i.e., Unit No. H-202 in Tower H/2 measuring an area of 2062 sq. ft. with one car parking at a cost of Rs.1,21,76,070/-. The total sale consideration agreed was fixed at Rs.1,49,05,152/-. As per Construction Agreement, the Builder was to handover the possession of the flat within 2 years from the date of Agreement, i.e., by 30.11.2012.The Complainant deposited a sum of Rs.1,38,55,893/-, i.e., more than 90% of the sale-consideration with the Builder despite that the Builder failed to deliver the possession of the flat within the stipulated period. The Complainants requested the Builder to adjust the compensation for delayed possession amounting to Rs.3,73,710/- as on October 2013 from the balance outstanding amount payable against the cost of the flat. The Builder agreed and sought few days’ time to arrive at the actual outstanding amount. Despite that after repeated requests and reminders, Builder failed to confirm the balance outstanding amount to the Complainants. The Complainants deposited a sum of Rs.14,10,974/- towards the completion of internal plastering installment on 22.10.2013.It is alleged that despite depositing more than 90% of the total purchase consideration as on 22.10.2013, Builder failed to handover the possession of the Flat even after 5 years of the Construction Agreement. The Complainant sent a Legal Notice to the Builder on 26.09.2016 demanding payment of Rs.42,07,000/- towards compensation for the delay in handing over the possession of the Flatin terms of Clause 7 of the Agreement executed between the Parties. The Builder sent a statement on 28.09.2016 whereby compensation was calculated at Rs.8,74,975/-. The Builder sent Reply to the Legal Notice sent by the Complainant asking him to meet for amicable settlement. But the Complainant did not convince with the reply and preferred to file a Consumer Complaint before the Tamilnadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chennai. Vide Order dated 07.08.2018, the State Commission returned the Complaint to the Complainant for presenting the same before the proper forum. Consequently, alleging Unfair Trade Practice and deficiency in service on the part of the Builder for not handing over the possession of the flat within stipulated period despite receiving more than 90% of the sale consideration and not paying the compensation for delay in possession as per Clause 7 of the Construction Agreement, the Complainant has filed the present Complaint before this Commission seeking following prayer:-

“i) Direct the Opposite Party to deliver the possession of the Residential Unit after completing in all respects in a liveable condition with all amenities, facilities including roads, water/electricity/sewerage connections, not limi