ORDER

R.K. Agrawal, President.—The present Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 04.02.2019 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter to be referred to as “State Commission”), whereby the Complaint filed by the Complainant was partly allowed and the Appellant Company was directed to hand over the possession of Flat No. 004 consisting of 3 BHK small, admeasuring 107.77 sq. mtr., Ground Floor, Block No. B-II-5, Sector A-5, East Facing door, corner Flat, ground floor facing park with open car parking space no. 619 in the project, New Haven, to the Complainant within a period of two months from the date of the order, along with Rs.25,000/- as cost and pay interest to the Complainant at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount of Rs.22,25,000/- from 01.07.2012 till handing over the possession of the Flat.

2. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the Complaint are that the Sanjiv Mahendru (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) had booked a residential flat (3BHK Small) on Ground Floor in the project “New Haven” proposed to be constructed by Tata Housing Development Company (hereinafter refer to as Opposite Party/Appellant) at Mumbai by paying a booking amount of Rs.50,000/- on 10.08.2009, subsequent thereto, vide letter dated 26.09.2009, Complainant was allotted residential Flat No.004, measuring 107.77 sq. mtr. i.e., 1160 sq. ft. built up area, on Ground Floor, Block No. B-II-5, Sector A-5, with open car parking space No. 619 in the said Project. Pertinently, as per the master plan annexed with the allotment letter, the location of the unit was earmarked as “As per your preference, east facing door, corner flat, ground floor, facing park”.

3. Agreement for sale was executed between the Parties on 18.06.2010, wherein the total sale consideration of the unit was stated to be Rs.22,25,000/-. The Complainant had stated to have taken home loan from HDFC Limited via Home Loan Agreement dated 01.10.2010 whereby an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- was sanctioned to the Complainant.

4. As per Clause 13 of the Agreement, the possession of the Flat No. 004 was supposed to be handed over on or before 31.12.2011, however, the possession got delayed due to default by the Opposite Party. Subsequently, possession was handed over to the Complainant via possession letter dated 19.08.2013 and duplicate keys were handed over to the Complainant. Complainant addressed his grievances before the Opposite Party with respect to inordinate delay caused in handing over the possession, the Complainant was assured that the matter will be taken up by the Senior Officers. The Complainant was asked to inspect the unit, and after due inspection, the Complainant signed the possession letter and took over the possession of the Unit.

5. However, in early 2014, the Complainant was informed telephonically that wrong flat has been delivered to the Complainant. Same was also communicated via email dated 31.03.2014 enclosing a letter dated 30.12.2013, stating that “relevant changes have been done at the site”, and the Complainant was further requested to visit the site to take possession of another flat and return the keys of the already allotted flat. The Complainant, after exchange of various correspondences between the Parties, visited the site and was appalled by the act of the Opposite Party since they had changed the locks of the Flat which was “supposedly” in possession of the Complainant. Complainant has further stated that Opposite Party have changed the numbering of the flats and proposed to handover the possession of another unit to the Complainant.

6. Aggrieved by the actions/inactions of the Opposite Party, the Complainant preferred a Consumer Complaint being CC No. 875 of 2015 before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Maharashtra at Mumbai.

7. The Opposite Party appeared before the State Commission submitted their written version raising the preliminary issues that Complaint is barred by Limitation;