ORDER

The present Review Application Nos. 18 to 32 of 2023 have been filed by the Opposite Party Developer i.e., BPTP Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as “the Developer”) praying for review of the Common Order dated 04.01.2023 passed by this Commission wherein Consumer Complaint Nos. 3023/17, 339/18, 340/18, 1130/18, 1204/18, 1211/18, 1516/18, 697/19, 1492/19, 1598/19, 1671/19, 1885/19, 2018/19, 1225/18, 255/19 and 300/20 were partly allowed by directing the Developer to either hand over the possession with delayed compensation or refund the deposited amount with interest as per the discretion of the Flat Buyers.

2. The relevant facts which are material to dispose of the present Review Applications, are that the Complainants/Non-Applicants were allotted different Residential Units in “TERRA” Residential Project, to be developed by the Opposite Party Developer at sector 37D, Gurugram, Haryana. Flat Buyers Agreements (hereinafter referred to as “The Agreement”) were executed between the Parties almost in the year 2012-2013. As per Clause 1.6 of the Agreement, the Opposite Parties were under an obligation to deliver the possession of the allotted Unit to the Flat Buyers within a period of 42 months from the date of execution of Agreement or sanction of Building Plan, whichever was later, extendable by another 180 days as grace period from the date of signing and execution of the Agreement. Since the Opposite Party Developer had failed to deliver the possession of the allotted Flats within stipulated period despite having received a substantial amount, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party Developer, the Non-Applicants/Complainants filed aforesaid Consumer Complaints claiming refund of the entire deposited amount along with interest and compensation.

3. This Commission vide its Order dated 04.01.2023 disposed of the Consumer Complaints by observing as under:—

“In brief, it is the case of the Complainants/Unit Holders of the Project “TERRA” that despite being paid the substantial amount towards the total Sales Consideration of the allotted Units to the Opposite Parties Developer, they have miserably failed to hand over the possession of the Units, complete in all respect, within the stipulated time as promised in Clause 1.6 of the Flat Buyer’s Agreement and hence they are entitled for refund of the deposited amount with interest and reasonable compensation even though the Developer have obtained the Occupancy Certificate in the year 2021 i.e. after delay of 4 years from the committed date of delivery.

16. According to the Developer, the delay in completing the Project has occurred due to default on the part of the Complainants in making the timely payments of due installments. Having charged interest at the very high rate for the said delay, in my considered opinion, the Developer has condoned the said delay and cannot deny refund with compensation on account of the aforesaid condoned defaults. Even if, some of the Complainants have defaulted in making the payments to the Developer, the Complainants who admittedly did not commit any default cannot be penalized for the default on the part of the other buyers. This is more so when there is delay in completing the construction and handing over the physical possession on the part of the Opposite Parties Developer. The Developer cannot take the advantage of its own wrong. Delay in completion of the Project by the Developer was one of the reasons due to which the Complainants did not make the payment of the due instalments inasmuch as the payment was linked with the construction status of the Project in question.

17. The stand taken by the Opposite Parties Developer that the period of delivery of possession in 42 months as defined in Clause 1.6 of the Agreement is not sacrosanct and the delay is attributable to Force Majeure events, and, therefore, no deficiency of service can be attributed to them, is totally unsustainable, as the Opposite Parties Developer