IMPORTANT POINT
Contractual Obligation - in the matter of contractual obligation, there is no scope for compensation for mental agony and harassment.

ORDER

Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member—Heard Mr. Amit Singh, Advocate, for the complainants and Mr. Hitesh Rajpurohit, Advocate, for the opposite parties.

2. The land at C.S.T.No.61(part), 61/130 to 135, 61/138 to 146, village Chembur, Municipal Corporation Ward “M West”, Eastern Express Highway, Chembur (East), Mumbai was occupied by slum dwellers from last many decades. The dwellers formed Shramjivi Co-operative Housing Society and get it registered. They applied for its redevelopment under Maharashtra Slums Improvement (Clearance and Rehabilitation) Act, 1971. Slum Rehabilitation Authority vide letter of intent dated 01.02.2010 as amended on 07.12.2011 approved the scheme of rehabilitation. Shramjivi Co-operative Housing Society entered into a Development Agreement with M/s. M.M. Developers, (now M/s. M.M. Developers- Shramjivi) who submitted Development Plan, for rehabilitation of members of the society which was approved and Commencement Certificate was granted on 21.04.2011. On the remaining land, which was saleable area, the opposite parties applied for sanction of Layout Plan of the building “MM Spectra”, which was sanctioned and “Commencement Certificate” was granted on 18.06.2012 and Layout Plan of the building “MM Splendor” was sanctioned and “Commencement Certificate” was granted on 11.04.2013. The complainants in above complaints are allottees of flats in the buildings “MM Spectra” as such these complaints are decided by a common order.

3. Shamik Bagchi and Ms. Vaishali Bagchi have filed CC/2060/2016, for directing the opposite parties to (i) handover possession of Flat No.1601, in the building “MM Spectra” to them, complete in all respect as per specifications, forthwith, (ii) to pay interest @18% per annum, on their deposit from the date of respective deposit till the date of payment, (iii) to hold that remaining 3% price of flat would be payable only after payment made of the opposite parties for compensation for delay in possession and harassment and mental agony, (iv) to pay Rs.854250/-, with interest @24% per annum towards rent paid by the complainants due to delay in delivery of possession till the date of actual possession, (v) to pay Rs.50/- lacs as compensation for mental agony and harassment, (vi) to pay Rs.2/- lacs, as the costs of litigation; and (vii) any other relief which is deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. Shamik Bagchi and Ms. Vaishali Bagchi have stated that M/s. M.M. Developers- Shramjivi (opposite party-1) was a registered Partnership Firm and other opposite parties were its partners. The opposite parties launched a project of group housing, namely “MM Spectra” at C.S.T. No.61(part), 61/130 to 135, 61/138 to 146, village Chembur, Municipal Corporation Ward “M West”, Eastern Express Highway, Chembur (East), Mumbai in the year 2012 and made wide publicity of it. The complainants booked a flat and deposited Rs.10/- lacs on 09.10.2012 and Rs.773664 on 12.11.2012. The opposite parties allotted Flat No.1601, admeasuring 647 sq.ft. carpet + 308 sq.ft. useable carpet area with Podium Car parking space, for total consideration of Rs.11235400/- in the building “MM Spectra” to the complainants and executed an Agreement For Sale dated 19.09.2013, in their favour. An amount of Rs.187140/- was also payable on miscellaneous heads. The complainants timely deposited their instalments as per demand and paid total Rs.11998011/- up to 15.02.2015. The complainants took loan of Rs.9018339/- from HDFC Limited and were paying EMI of Rs.86152/-. Vide clause-7 of the agreement, the opposite parties promised to handover possession till 30.06.2014, with grace period of six months and if possession was not handed over till 31.12.2014, the opposite parties agreed to pay interest @12% per annum on the deposit made by the complainants. After expiry of due date of possession as and when the complainants inquired about possession then some assurance for possession was given. The complainants wrot