ORDER

The complainant has come up praying for relief (a), (b), (d) and other consequential reliefs. The complainant’s counsel has however prayed that he is not pressing prayer clause (c) and (e) in respect of the allegation of deficiency in handing over of a flat that was booked and purchased by the complainant from the opposite party. The dispute is regarding the delivery of possession of residential flat T18-201 in La Tropicana, Khyber Pass, Delhi.

2. It is this deficiency in service for which the reliefs prayed for as referred to above have been pressed into service and the matter had been taken up on previous occasions when the learned counsel for the opposite party had sought time to tender payments. On 01.05.2024 it was intimated that three post-dated cheques had been tendered pursuant to the order dated 07.11.2023 but the said cheques bounced. Consequently, no settlement could take place nor any payments were made and accordingly the matter was posted for 25.06.2024 for being heard finally. An adjournment was sought on 25.06.2024 by the learned counsel for the opposite party and this is how the matter was placed on 26.06.2024.

3. Mr. Prabhakar Tiwari had sought time to bring on record an affidavit regarding delivery of possession which he said was pursuant to the understanding with the association of which the complainant is a member. Nonetheless, this request was declined as enough time had already been spent in getting the matter negotiated through settlement which had ultimately failed.

4. The facts as on record of the evidence filed by the complainant as well as along with the written version of the opposite party demonstrates that the booking of the premises and the issuance of provisional allotment letter for the said flat was made through Emperor International Ltd. stated to be a broker of the opposite party. The provisional allotment of the flat was made on 18.02.2005 in favour of the said broker in respect of the same premises which is a 5 bedroom flat with a payment plan which was attached with the said letter that is on record.

5. So far as the complainant is concerned, a change of right to purchase was approved and consequently the flat was purchased by the complainant. The document to support this has been filed by the complainant with their evidence as annexure C-7 dated 01.03.2006 which document remains undisputed. Consequently, the complainant became an allottee and thereafter the complainant has brought on record the documents to indicate that all payments were tendered by them and the receipts issued were also endorsed in their favour. It is then submitted that the fact that the complainant was admitted as an allottee stands confirmed with all the payments that have been received by the opposite party.

6. A flat buyer agreement had been entered into between the parties which is dated 04.11.2009 and is on record. This agreement was entered into after the change of the ownership had taken place as indicated above and it also records that the complainant at the time of the said agreement had already paid a sum of Rs.59,83,312.50 ps. This is recorded in clause 3(a) of the said agreement.

7. The payments were to be made as per the payment plan and the flat was to be delivered within a period of 36 months plus a grace period of six months. This is contained in clause 11 of the agreement. The period was to start with the date of the commencement of the constructions, and in order to substantiate that the constructions commenced in April 2010, learned counsel for the complainant has invited the attention of the Bench to the letter dated 18.03.2010 addressed to the complainant by the opposite party intimating that the foundation shall commence on 02.04.2010. This fact does not seem to be disputed by the opposite party.

8. Learned counsel has then invited the attention of the Bench to the statement of accounts as furnished by the opposite party in their written version to establish that they have made the paymen