IMPORTANT POINT
False assurance – Opposite Party is deficient in providing its services to the Complainants as the Opposite Party had given false assurance to the Complainants with respect to the time for handing over the possession of the said unit and kept the hard-earned money of the Complainants.

JUDGMENT

Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President)—The present complaint has been filed by the Complainants before this commission alleging deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party and has prayed the following reliefs:—

(a) To hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of unit no. 902 on the Ninth Floor of tower 10.

(b) To withdraw the letter dated 11.09.2018 more particularly to drop the demand of Rs.7,96,263.70.

(c) To pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000 as damages/compensation for keeping the complainants in dark about alteration in area, demanding and accepting money in excess of the amount payable for the area being allotted, further delay in handing over the possession and mental agony and harassment.

(d) To pay compounded interest @18% on the total amount collected from the complainants for the period of delay in offering possession.

(e) To pay the cost for the complaint.

(f) Order for any other relief that this commission may deem fit and proper be passed in favour of the complainants and against the respondents.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present complaint are that in the year 2011, the Complainants booked a unit bearing no.902 with the Opposite Party in the project ‘TDI Tuscan Heights’ situated at Kundli, Sonepat, Haryana. Thereafter, an apartment buyer agreement was executed between the parties on 19.09.2012. As per clause 30 of the said agreement, the Opposite Party was to hand over the possession of the said unit within 30 months from the date of the agreement. However, the Opposite Party failed to hand over the possession of the said unit till date.

3. The Complainants had made a total payment of Rs.28,16,547/- towards the total consideration of Rs.29,27,996/- but the Complainants were shocked to receive a possession letter dated 11.09.2018 along with a demand of Rs.7,96,263.70/- instead of Rs.1,11,449/- in order to get possession of the said unit. Upon scrutiny of the perceived error and subsequent discrepancy in the said amount, the Complainants realized that the super area of the property had been arbitrarily increased by 205.2 sq. ft., i.e., from 1080 sq. ft. to 1285.2 sq. ft., without any justification. The Complainants also sent emails dated 26.09.2018, 03.10.2018, and a letter dated 11.01.2019 seeking justification for the arbitrary increase in the saleable area of the said unit but did not receive any response from the Opposite Party. Thus, left with no other option and alleging deficiency of service & unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, the Complainants approached this Commission.

4. During the course of the proceedings, a notice was issued to the Opposite Party on 02.07.2017. Thereafter, on 16.09.2019, the Opposite Party filed the memo of appearance and undertook to file the vakalatnama within 7 days. It was also directed to file the written statement within 30 days. However, the Opposite Party failed to file the written statement within the stipulated time. Consequently, upon perusal of the order dated 12.03.2021, the written statement filed by the Opposite Party was not taken on record. Since the Opposite Party has failed to file the written statement within the stipulated period, the averments made by the Complainants in the present case remain unrebutted.

5. The Complainants have duly filed his evidence and written arguments.

6. We have perused the material available on record and heard the counsel for the parties.

7. The fact that the Complainants had booked a unit with the Opposite Party is evident from the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement dated 19.09.2012 annexed with the Complaint. Payment to the extent of Rs.29,27,996/- by the Complainants to the Opposite Party is evident from the receipts issued by the Opposite Party. (Annexure attached with the Complaint in list of documents).

8. The only question for consideration before us is whether the Opposite Party is deficient in providing its services to the Complainants. The expression Deficiency of Ser