IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Housing Construction - The expression ‘service’ in Section 2(1) (o) means a service of any description which is made available to potential users including the provision of facilities in connection with (among other things) housing construction.
(2) Fifteen years - Opposite Party is deficient in providing its services to the Complainant as the Opposite Party had given false assurance to the Complainant with respect to the time for completing construction/handing over possession of the said flat and kept the hard-earned money of the Complainant for fifteen years.
(3) Deficiency - The failure of the developer to comply with the contractual obligation to provide the flat to a flat purchaser within a contractually stipulated period amounts to a deficiency.

JUDGMENT

Rajan Sharma, Member (Judicial)—The present Consumer Complainant has been filed on 05.11.2015 before this Commission under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by Col. Deb Kumar Bose (hereinafter referred to as the “Complainant”) and against Sanghwan heights Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred as the “Opposite Party”) seeking the following reliefs:—

“(a) Direct the Opposite Party to refund advance payment of Rs.11,04,000/- along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of payment i.e. May 2008, which is consolidated Rs.25,78,884/- till filing of complaint and also pendent lite interest till realization of amount the interest of justice to meet the ends of justice; (b) Direct to Opposite Party to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as an compensation for causing harassment, mental agony and physical inconvenience to the Complainant; (c) Direct the Opposite Party to pay the litigation cost; (d) Pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the favour of the Complainant in the interest of justice to meet the ends of justice.”

2. Brief facts giving rise of the present Complaint are that Complainant had booked a Type-3 BHK flat on 16.11.2007 ad-measuring 1600 sq. ft. (super area) in the project of Opposite Party previously known as “Hindon Heights” and and had paid an amount of Rs.3,60,000/- as booking payment on 13.11.2007. The total sale consideration of the said flat was of Rs. 25,80,000/-. Vide allotment letter dated 16.11.2007, a Flat/Unit No. 307, Saffron-1, Third Floor in “Hindon Heights” situated at NH-58, Noor Nagar, Opposite Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P. was allotted to the Complainant. Copy of the allotment letter has been annexed as Annexure C-4 at (Page No. 22 of the Complaint).

3. As per Annexure-B at (Page No. 35 of the Complaint), the Complainant had opted the “Construction Linked Plan”, according to which the payment of the said flat was to be made as follows: (15% at the time of booking + 10% within 2 months + 10% on the plenith level + 7% on 1st roof slab + 7% on 2nd roof slab + 7% on 3rd roof slab + 7% on 4th roof slab + 7% on 5th roof slab + 7% on 6th roof slab + 7% on 7th roof slab + 7% on plastering + 9% on possession + applicable charges plus stamp duty extra).

4. It has further been mentioned in the Complaint that on 03.12.2007 Complainant had paid an amount of Rs.2,40,000/- to the Opposite Party towards the second instalment of the said flat. Further on Complaint had obtained housing loan of Rs.15,00,000/- from Army Group Insurance Fund to pay the balance payment to the Opposite Party after signing a tripartite agreement executed between the Complainant, Opposite Party and Army Group Insurance Fund. Thereafter, on 09.05.2008, the Complainant had made another payment of Rs.5,04,000/- to the Opposite Party.

5. As per the allotment letter dated 16.11.2007, the Opposite Party was to hand over the possession of the said flat within 36 months i.e. before December, 2010. The Complainant over the time had paid a total sum of Rs.11,04,000/- to the Opposite Party as and when demanded. The tabular representation of the payments made along with the acknowledgment has been reproduced below:

6. It is further case of the Complainant that the Opposite Party had assured the Complainant that construction would be completed within the stipulated time and the possess