IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Offer of Possession - An offer of possession based on occupancy certificate (OC) needs to be considered as valid.
(2) Additional Sanction - Additional sanction or safety certificates once an OC has been issued by the concerned statutory authority are not indicative of the offer of possession being incorrect or invalid.
(3) Compensation - In case a builder offers possession after the due date of promised possession, it is the discretion of the allottee to either accept the possession or to seek a full refund of his money with compensation.
(4) Developer - A developer should be aware that delays and approval of the building plans are normal incidents of a construction project and therefore, force majeure would not be available if the fault is that of the developer.
(5) Force majeure cause - The responsibility for the delay cannot, therefore, be latched on to a force majeure cause.

ORDER

Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member—This consumer complaint has been filed under section 21(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ‘the Act’) against the opposite party M/s Godrej Buildwell Pvt., Ltd., alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in respect of the apartment booked by the complainants in a project promoted and executed by the opposite party.

2. By this common order, all the above-mentioned complaints are proposed to be disposed since the complaints relate to the same project ‘Godrej Platinum’ of the same opposite party viz., – M/s Godrej Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., and involve the same set of facts. For the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from CC no.3796 of 2017.

3. The facts, in brief, are that on 09.10.2013 the complainant entered into an Agreement to Sell (in short, ‘the Agreement’) relating to a four bed room apartment with the opposite party in the project ‘Godrej Platinum’, in Hebbal Village, Kasaba Hubli, Bengaluru North Taluk. Apartment no. GODPMA 0602 ad-measuring 3905 sq ft on the 6th floor of Wing A along with two car parking spaces was allotted by the opposite party for a sale consideration of Rs.1,79,82,000/-. An Agreement for Construction (Construction Agreement) was also executed between the parties for Rs. 1,79,82,000/- on 09.12.2013. As on the date of the Agreement, Rs.35,96,400/- had been paid by the complainant to the opposite party, inclusive of booking amount of Rs.23,43,000/-. As per clause 3 of the agreement, the project was to be completed within 36 months i.e., by September 2015 with six months grace period, i.e., by March 2016. As per clause 22 of the Agreement, the opposite party undertook to compensate the complainant for delay, if any, in the handing over of the apartment @ 12% per annum. As per the Construction Agreement signed between the parties, various instalments of payments were made between 2013 and 2015 by the complainant. However, the possession of the said apartment was not offered till March 2017. On 14.04.2017, the opposite party issued an invoice for final payment prior to taking possession of the said flat. It is averred by the complainant that the opposite party did not pay 12% interest that was due to him on account of the delay in completion of the project despite requests for the same. On 22.07.2017, the opposite party offered him four additional parking slots since the complainant along with seven other family members had booked eight apartments in the project. According to the complainant this was an admission by the opposite party of the delay and an acknowledgment of the fact that compensation was due to be paid to the complainant. However, this offer was not acceptable to the complainant. He sent a legal notice on 06.11.2017 which was replied to in vague terms by the opposite party on 27.11.2017. Thereafter the present complaint was filed in December 2017, with the following prayer:—

(a) Declare that the OP has committed deficiency of service;

(b) Direct the OP to forthwith deliver possession of the apartment bearing no.GODPMA0602 measuring 3905 sq ft of super built up area on the 6th Floor of Wing A of the project to the complainant without levy of any holding charges whatsoever, and register the same in the name of the complainant;

(c) Direct the OP to pay to the complainant a sum equivalent to the interest calculated at the rate of 12% per annum on the sum of Rs.3,29,45,734/- calculated from March 2016 till the date of actual payment thereof, towards compensation for the deficiency in service committed by the OP;

(d) Award cost of the present complaint to the complainant; and

(e) Pass any such further orders as may be deemed just and expedient in the facts of the present case.

4. It is the complainant’s case that as per clause 22 of the agreement he is entitled to be compensated @ 12% simple interest for the delay in handing over the possession which amounts to deficiency in service. He is therefore, seeking to be