The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the complainant to a refund of the deposit amount along with interest, compensation for mental agony, and cost of proceedings due to delayed possession of the property and illegal payments.

ORDER :

Nisha Gupta, President

This complaint is filed on 25.7.2017 with the contention that the complainant has booked a flat in the project of non-applicant named NRl Premium Flats and agreement was entered on 29.7.2010. Flat No. 609 was booked. Total sale price was Rs. 11,95,000. A sum of Rs. 1,50,000 was paid on 14.7.2010. The possession was to be delivered till 29.11.2011 but even after lapse of six years the possession has not been delivered to the complainant. Per contra letter dated 5.11.2015 was issued to him asking additional amount, registration charges, maintenance charges, etc. and when complainant’s son visited the site on 22.5.2017 he shocked to find that project is still incomplete. Hence, refund of money along with 18% interest, compensation for mental agony, economic loss as the complainant has to rented the house for his son and cost of proceedings were asked.

2. Non-applicant was duly served on 8.11.2017. Its officer incharge Harbindra Kumar was also appeared but on next date none appeared. No reply or evidence is submitted on behalf of the non-applicant.

3. Complainant has entered into evidence.

4. Heard the Counsel for the complainant and perused the record of the case.

5. The contention of the complainant is that he booked flat No. 609 with the non-applicant. Agreement Ex. 1 clearly shows that flat was booked with the non-applicant at the sale price of Rs. 11,95,000. Ex. 2 is the letter issued by non-applicant wherein it has been admitted that complainant has paid Rs. l2,24,250. Further Ex. 3 was issued to the complainant on 5.11.2015 wherein it has been stated that intimation of the possession is being sent separately but the contention of the complainant is that no such intimation was ever sent to him.

6. The other contention of the complainant is that vide Exs. 4 to 6 amount for registration, sale deed and maintenance charges were asked from him in spite of the fact that flats were not complete and to support this contention photos Exs. 7 to 26 submitted which clearly makes out a case that still project is not complete and not in a position to handover the possession to the complainant. Written notice Ex. 29 was also served on the non-applicant.

7. The complaint has been supported by the relevant documents which clearly makes out a case that in spite of the delay of seven years the possession of the property has not been handed over to the complainant and till today the project is not complete. Hence, the complainant is entitled for the relief.

8. The complainant has relied upon II (2016) CPJ 298 (NC), Ravi Developments v. Ankur Bharuka and judgment passed by the National Commission in Revision Petition No. 355/2013, M/s. Mukherji Builders v. Dr. Mrs. Annupurna Mishra, I (2014) CPJ 254 (NC), where the possession has not been handed over to the complainant in time and illegal payments were demanded and the National Commission was of the opinion that act of the non-applicant is mischievous.

9. Further reliance has been placed on I (2016) CPJ 272 (NC), Ruturaj Construction v. Prakash Ramchandra Kale, judgment passed by the National Commission in Consumer Case No. 427/2014, Satish Kumar Pandey v. M/s. Unitech Ltd., III (2015) CPJ 440 (NC) and judgment passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Commission in First Appeal No. 995/2013, M/s. Name Estates v. Sri N. Papi Reddy, where on similar facts complaints were allowed.

10. Here in the present case also the possession of the property has not been handed over to the complainant in spite of clear agreement between the parties and till today the project is incomplete and the complainant is entitled for the relief.

11. The complainant has further relied upon the judgment passed by the National Commission in Consumer Case No. 346/2014, Rajeev Nohwar v. M/s. Sahajanand Hitech Construction Pvt. Ltd., IV (2016) CPJ 521 (NC)=and judgment passed by the Chandigarh State Commission in Complaint Case No. 966/2016, Meghraj v. M/s. Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd. where no r