IMPORTANT POINTS
1) Non-fulfilment of overall responsibilities of project planning, execution and completion cannot be and are no grounds for condoning or overlooking delay in completion and failure to offer possession within the agreed and assured period.
2) Omnibus plea of force majeure, unforeseeable circumstances cannot be nebulously and irrationally articulated in the agreement or be successfully contended and argued for anything and everything related to the builder co.’s failure to fulfil its responsibilities

ORDER

Dinesh Singh, Presiding Member.—This appeal has been filed under Section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 01.05.2015 of The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U. T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No. 26 of 2015.

2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. Perused the material on record, including inter alia the State Commission’s impugned Order dated 01.05.2015 and the memorandum of appeal.

3. The appeal has been filed with reported delay of 20 days. However, in the interest of justice, to provide fair opportunity to the appellants, to decide the matter on merit, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

4. This is a builder-buyer dispute. The complainant (the respondent herein) entered into an agreement on 02.07.2011 with opposite parties no. 1 & 2 (the appellants no. 1 & 2 herein (the builder co.)). He paid an amount of Rs. 31.50 lakh to the builder co. during 2013. The agreed and assured date for completing the subject project and for offering possession of the subject unit was 02.07.2013 (24 months inclusive of the 06 months’ grace period). The project was not completed by the agreed and assured date, or even within a reasonable period thence, offer of possession of the subject unit was not made by the agreed and assured date, or even within a reasonable period thence (reasonable period here would connote a period which a reasonable man would not normally agitate). The complainant went before the State Commission on 12.02.2015. The State Commission passed its impugned Order on 01.05.2015, whereby it ordered the opposite parties no. 1 & 2 builder co. and the opposite party no. 3 director of the builder co. to refund the deposited amount of Rs.31.50 lakh to the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till realisation along with lumpsum compensation of Rs. 1 lakh and cost of litigation of Rs. 15 thousand. It also made a provision for penal interest in case its award was not complied with within 45 days of the receipt of a certified copy of its Order. The award against the opposite parties no. 1 & 2 builder co. and the opposite party no. 3 director of the builder co. was joint and several. The complaint against the opposite parties no. 4 and no. 5 was dismissed.

5. It is noted that the State Commission has passed a well-appraised reasoned Order, aptly dealing with the issues inherent. However, to place the whole matter in perspective, it is to say here that prior to, or, at the least, simultaneous to, getting a consumer to enter into its agreement and accepting the first payment towards the total cost of the subject unit, the builder co. was required and expected to have the due pragmatic and realistic assessment and preparation of the project planning, execution and completion. It was the prime responsibility of the builder co. to ensure that it was in a position to deliver the possession of the subject unit to the buyer consumer within the assured period of 18 months and in all contingencies within the extended grace period of 24 months thence. Planning, execution and completion were the builder co.’s responsibility, and not of the consumer; (normal) impediments or problems that may arise in planning, execution and completion were its own responsibility, and not of the consumer. Specifically, availability of land, as well as all approvals from the concerned government, development and municipal authorities, as and when due, being fundamental basic requirements of a residential housing project, were decidedly to be taken care of and dealt with by the builder co. with due diligence. Time and cost overruns were also within the domain of its own duty and obligation. Non-fulfilment of its overall responsibilities of project planning, execution and completion can not be and are not grounds for condoning or overlooking delay in completion and failure to offer possession within the agreed and assured period. Omnibus plea