IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is not barred merely because there is a Clause of Arbitration in the Agreement entered into between the parties.
(2) Opp. Party is estopped from raising the plea that there was delay on the part of the Complainants in making timely payments and they were not entitled to any compensation.
(3) No reason attributable to force majeure clause, which could have prevented the Opp. Party from completing the project and hand over possession of the flat in question by the stipulated date in 2017.

ORDER

R.K. Agrawal, President.—The present Complaint has been filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short “the Act”) against M/s. Wave Mega City Centre Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the Developer”), seeking the following reliefs:

1. “Direct the Opposite Party to deliver the possession of the flat i.e. Apartment No. 1603, having super area of 1548.63 sq. feet (approx. 143.87 sq. meter) on the 16th Floor of Block No. 2B, Block Name-Amore, Tower No. A, Serviced Residence No. 03, Noida along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the delay of the delivery of the flat till the final adjudication/ realization of the case and along with pendent lite and future interest at the same rate or such higher rate which this Hon’ble Commission may deemed fit in the interest of justice.

And/Or

2. Direct the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.1,04,98,248/- (Rupees One Crore Four Lakh Ninety Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Forty Eight Only) along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of deposit till the final adjudication of the case and along with pendent lite and future interest at the same rate or such higher rate which this Hon’ble Commission may deemed fit in the interest of justice.

3. Direct the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Only) each to the Complainants as compensation for harassment, inconvenience and mental agony caused by the Opposite Party.

4. That a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) each be allowed as litigation costs.

5. Any other reliefs that this Hon’ble deems fit and proper in favour of the Complainants in the circumstances of the case.”

2. The brief facts as set out in the Complaint are that the Complainants lured by the eye catching advertisements and assurances given by the representatives of the Developer, has applied for the allotment of an Apartment in the Group Housing Complex called “Wave City Centre” situated at Plot No. CC-001, Sector 25A & 32, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, in the year 2012. Vide Allotment Letter dated 19.07.2012, the Complainants were allotted an Apartment No. 1603 having super area of 1548.63 sq. feet (approx. 143.87 sq. Meter) on the 16th Floor of Block No. 2B, Block Name-Amore, Tower No. A, Serviced Residence No. 3 in the aforesaid Group Housing Complex. An Allottee Arrangement was also executed between the parties on 19.07.2012 (for short, the “Agreement”). The total Sale Consideration for the Apartment was Rs.1,10,23,922.66/-, which was exclusive of Preferential Location Charges, Lease Charges, Car Parking Charges etc. As per Clause 5.1 of the Agreement, the possession of the Apartment was to be delivered within 48 months from the date of the execution of the Agreement i.e. by July 2016 with a grace period of six months that means latest by December, 2016. It is further averred by the Complainants that they have been continuously following up with the Developer regarding the date of possession by visiting their office but the Developer has given fall assurances to the Complainants about the delivery of possession. Subsequently, the Complainants visited the site of construction and they were shocked to see that Tower No. A (Amore), wherein the Apartment was allotted to the Complainants was at an initial stage of construction. On making enquiries from the Technical Staff present at the site, the Complainants came to know that the completion of construction of Tower No. 1 (Amore) shall take at least another 2 to 3 years.

3. On 10.10.2016, the Complainants sent an email to the Developer asking about the exact date of delivery of possession but there was no response. Thereafter, the Complainants repeatedly visited the Registered Office of the Developer, but the Employees of the Developer were unable to give any reliable assurance with respect to completion of construction of the Project and their request of meeting with the Managing Director of the Developer was turned down. Finally, on 28.06.2017