IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Continuous cause of action - The defects and deficiencies in service for which the instant complaint has been filed is continuous in nature and still subsists and therefore the cause of action is continuing.
(2) Complicated questions of fact - Merely because recording of evidence is required, or some questions of fact and law arise which would need to be investigated and determined, cannot be a ground for shutting the doors of any Forum under the Act to the person aggrieved.

ORDER

Complainant No.1 is the registered Residential Welfare Association of residential complex, “JMD Gardens” located at Sector 33, near Subhash Chowk,Sohna Road, Gurgaon. Complainant No.1 filed this Complaint on behalf of its 47 members who are owners of residential Flats in “JMD Garden”. Opposite Party No.1 is a real estate developer having Registered Office at 6, Devika Tower, Upper Ground Floor Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 and Corporate Office at JMD Regent Square, 3rd Floor, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon-122002. Opposite Party No.1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Developer’) who developed and sold the flats to the members of Complainant No.1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Residents’). Opposite Party No.2 is the sister concern of Opposite Party No.1 and is engaged in the maintenance of JMD Gardens, having Registered Office at 6, Devika Tower, Upper Ground Floor Nehru Place, New Delhi- 110019 and Corporate Office at JMD I Regent Square, 3rd Floor, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon-122002. Opposite Party No.3 is the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana, Chandigarh, office at Ayozna Bhawan, Madhya Marg, Sector, Chandigarh-160018. Building plans were sanctioned by the Opposite Party No.3, vide approval letter dated 22nd July 2005. Under Clause 2.3 of the Flat Buyer Agreement the construction of flats was to be completed within three and half years from the date of sanction of the building plans. The Residents were handed over possession of their respective flats on various dates between July 2010 and August 2012, with a delay of more than three years. The Complainants deposited a sum ranging from Rs.50 per square ft to Rs.70 per square ft in the form of a Contingency Fund. Further, the amount was stipulated as an interest free amount which the Complainant submits was per se illegal and there was no basis for charging such an interest free amount, against a demand which may or may not occur. Residents enquired with the concerned authorities and received confirmation from DTCP, Haryana that the final determination of the External Development Charges was already quantified in December 2004, which Opposite Party No.1 failed to inform them and also failed to return the excess money collected from the Residents. Further, Opposite Party No.1 in violation of clause 3.1 of the flat buyer’s Agreement, included balcony in the calculation of super area. At the time of executing the sale deed, Opposite Party No.1 coerced the Residents to accept the amended definition of super area which included balcony. In addition to fraudulently misrepresenting the Super Area, Opposite Party No.1 started constructing new towers on the plot next to JMD Gardens. These towers were not in the project plan when the Residents booked respective flats in JMD Gardens. Opposite Party No.1 had, thus, encroached the original common area, in violation of the sanctioned building plan approved by DTCP, Chandigarh, Haryana. Every flat owner had an undivided interest in the common area and facilities and this arbitrary alteration of common area was in contravention to Section 6 (2) of The Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983, which provided that the percentage of the undivided interest of each apartment owner in the common areas and facilities as expressed in the Form of Declaration shall have a permanent character and shall not be altered without the consent of all of the apartment owners. Opposite Party No.1 had collected preferential location charges from the Residents of L and M block Towers of JMD Gardens, who purchased units in lower floors on the basis of the assurance given by Opposite Party No.1 that the front area will be an open area. However, after collecting preferential location charges Opposite Party No.1 started constructing new towers which had blocked air and sun light and caused inconvenience. At the time of taking possession of their respective flats, it was alleged that the quality of construction and services provided were of inferior q