IMPORTANT POINT
Real Estate – SC in cases of delay in offer of possession has ordered refund with 9% S.I. per annum which appears to be reasonable.

ORDER

The present Complaint has been filed under Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by Angad Singh Kohli (Complainant) against Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (Opposite Party) for the alleged deficiency in service, unfair trade practice etc.

2. The facts leading to filing of the present Consumer Complaint are that upon seeing the attractive advertisement about a housing project being developed by the Opposite Party, which is a government body of Punjab State carrying out the development and construction work, the Complainant, vide Application Form No. 30357 dated 12.01.2012, applied for a residential apartment in General category, Type – III in the project ‘Purab Premium Apartments’ in SAS Nagar, Mohali. The tentative price was fixed at Rs.69,00,000/- and the possession was promised to be delivered within 36 months. He deposited an amount of Rs.6,90,000/- against the Earnest Money Deposit. The allotment of the flats was to be done 22.03.2012 through a draw of lots. The Opposite Party issued the Letter of Intent (LOI) for allotment dated 23.05.2012 to the Complainant, informing that he was allotted Unit bearing no. 224 and also raised an additional amount of Rs.13,80,000/- for completion of 30% of the sale consideration towards confirmation of the said allotment. The Complainant opted Plan-B for payment, whereby 30% of the sale consideration was to be deposited as per the schedule of payment and further 65% of the sale consideration along with interest in 6 half yearly installments, after taking a housing loan from Oriental Bank of Commerce. The Complainant made the payment of the amount of Rs.13,80,000/- as demanded by the Opposite Party vide DD dated 22.06.2012. The first instalment of the 6 half yearly instalments was due on 23.11.2012, but due to some medical condition in the family, the Complainant made payment of Rs.10,16,600/- on 04.04.2014. Till 19.01.2015 i.e. the date of possession as per the Plan, he made total payment of Rs.78,41,850/- as per the Letter of Intent. Subsequently, the payment of Rs.4,47,350/- was also made by the Complainant as the balance amount of the 6th instalment.

3. It was alleged in the Complaint that after all the payments, when the Complainant visited the project site, not even 50% of the Project site was completed by the Opposite Party. On inquiry, the Complainant was told that due to the delayed construction, the possession will be difficult to deliver in time, but no specific time limit was conveyed by the Opposite Party. In the meanwhile, the Complainant moved formal request for waiver of interest and penalty on 07.12.2015, and served follow-up notices through e-mails, to which, vide e-mail dated 28.04.2014, the request of the Complainant was rejected.

4. It was further alleged that the Complainant regularly visited the office of the Opposite Party for offer of possession, but on one pretext or the other, the same was not provided to him nor any confirmation was given. Ultimately, the Complainant applied for the refund of his amount with interest vide his letter dated 06.06.2017, but the Opposite Party issued a Letter of Allotment and Offer of Possession dated 10.08.2017. It was informed that a Complaint being CC No. 1278 of 2016 was filed by the Purab Premium Apartment Allottees Association seeking possession of the Units booked in which the Complainant, being member of the Association, was also a party, wherein the Opposite Party paid an amount of Rs.66,16,011/- to the Complainant, but forfeited 10% of the sale consideration stating that the possession had already been offered to the Complainant, as per provision of Section 45(3) of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act and imposed a penal interest to the tune of Rs.7,53,334/- and charged amount of Rs.21,321/- as service tax. The Complainant filed an I.A. in that Complaint to withdraw his name from the array of parties in the Complaint on the ground that he was seeking refund and not posse