The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the promised timeframe for possession and held the OPs accountable for unauthorized changes in the delivery date.

ORDER :

J.S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member— The complainants have instituted this complaint under Section 17(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short the “Act) against OPs, on the premise that OP No. 1 has been managing the affairs of the company and OP No. 2 is the director of OP No. 1. OPs launched a residential project Orchard County in Sector 115 Mohali in the year 2006. The complainants agreed to purchase 3+1 BHK flat from OPs for the purpose of their family residence. They booked a flat with OPs in Orchard County Project at Kharar-Landran Road, Sector 115, Mohali, measuring super area of 1,798 sq. ft. vide application dated 25.6.2011 at the basic price of Rs. 2,303 per sq. ft. for total price of Rs. 41,40,794 by paying Rs. 6,37,113 as booking amount. At the time of booking and filling the application form, it was mentioned under Clause 11 of the terms and conditions of the booking application, that the possession of the flat would be handed over to them by OPs within a period of 24-30 months from the date of booking. After taking home loan from HDFC Bank, the complainants paid the total amount of Rs. 46,09,683 to OPs, vide annexure C-5 (colly), the detail of which is as under:

Thereafter, OPs offered possession of the flat to the complainant, vide letter dated 14.4.2014, which was received by them on 16.5.2014, vide which the OPs increased the super area of the flat from 1,798 to 1874 square feet without explaining as to on what account, the said area has been increased by them, which is unfair trade practice of OPs. The complainant raised objection vide letter dated 20.5.2014 that it was a paper possession only, as the electric wiring, toilets, flooring of all the three bed rooms, approach road in from of tower No. 6 were not completed and further pointed out that kitchen modules, fire safety instruments were not fitted, car parking was not ready and earmarked, lifts were not operational and possession was offered just to avoid payment of pre-EMI interest on the loan amount taken by complainants. The complainants also requested OPs to provide completion certificate of tower No. 6, as per approved plan along with other statutory clearances from the competent authorities. There is huge delay on the part of OPs in offering the possession of the unit, as OPs promised to handover the possession to complainants in July 2014, but failed to do so. The complainants booked the flat on 25.5.2011 and the possession of the said was to be delivered within 24 to 30 months from the date of booking, as per Clause 11 of the application form. Thereafter, OPs at their own, changed the said period to reasonable time in the allotment letter dated 23.8.2011 arbitrarily. The complainants have alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and prayed for compensation in not delivering the possession of the flat in question in time as per terms and conditions of the application form and for charging Rs. 1,75,023 for increased area without their consent. The complainants have prayed for following directions:

(i) OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs.