IMPORTANT POINT
Additional Payment – the demand of the Opposite Party for additional payment on account of the alleged increase in Super Area of the Flat was unjustified.

ORDER

Sudip Ahluwalia, Member—This Consumer Complaint has been filed under Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, and seeking possession of the apartment, or in the alternative, refund of the deposited amounts along with ancillary reliefs.

2. The factual background in brief is that, in the year 2012, the Complainant became aware of a project by the Opposite Party known as “ATS One Hemlet,” located at Plot No. GH-01, Sector 104, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. The project boasted various amenities such as a luxurious clubhouse, swimming pool, tennis, squash, basketball courts, jogging track, gym, and shopping arcade. Subsequently, the Complainant booked Unit Reference No. 09064, with a super built-up area of 1636 Sq. Ft. in the project, and paid Rs. 5,00,000/- on 19.06.2012. The Opposite Party issued a Provisional Allotment Letter dated 13.07.2012, containing completely arbitrary and one-sided Terms & Conditions. Opting for the down payment plan, the Complainant made the entire payment of Rs. 97,78,212/-, except for Rs. 5,50,000/- which was to be paid at the time of possession. According to the Provisional Allotment Letter and Clause 7.1 of the Terms and Conditions, possession of the apartment was to be handed over to the Complainant by May 2013 (plus 90 days grace period), i.e., by August 2013. However, the Opposite Party failed to deliver possession of the Apartment within the timeline promised in the Provisional Allotment Letter. On 27.08.2013, the Complainant received a letter from the Opposite Party stating that the structure of all the towers had been completed, and the finishing work was in an advanced stage. It was further mentioned that there had been an upward revision in the super area of all the apartments, with the area of the Complainant’s apartment being changed from 1636 Sq. Ft. to 1783 Sq. Ft. Consequently, the Complainant was informed that she was liable to pay extra money for the increased area at the time of possession. Subsequently, on 09.09.2013, the Complainant requested the Opposite Party to provide a copy of the site plan of her apartment showing the ‘original’ and ‘increased’ revised area with precise dimensions of covered and common area. However, in response, the Complainant received the ‘revised layout plan,’ which was identical to the original plan. In this backdrop, the Complainant informed the Opposite Party via email dated 14.09.2013 that she was not liable to pay anything further, as the change in the area without the consent of the apartment purchasers contravened the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership, and Maintenance) Act, 2010. Aggrieved by the deficient service and unfair trade practices of the Opposite Party, she filed the present complaint.

3. In view of the aforesaid facts, the Complainant has prayed as following—

“(i) Direct the Respondent to handover possession of Apartment, to the Complainant, complete in all respects and in conformity with the Provisional Allotment Letter and for the consideration mentioned therein (without any additional amount for alleged increase in super area), with all additional facilities and as per quality standards promised, and execute all the necessary and required documents and provide an affidavit along with an appropriate certificate of an independent architect towards the internal area and finishing of the subject apartment being as per promised standards in respect of the said apartment in favour of the Complainant;

(ii) Direct the Respondent, to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the amount deposited by the Complainant with the Respondent, with effect from Ist September, 2013 till the date actual physical possession as per clause (i) above is handed over by the Respondent, along with all necessary documents and common areas and facilities;

(iii) Direct the Respondent to withdraw its demand of Rs. 40,37,040/