IMPORTANT POINT
Allotment of flat – Flat purchaser cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of his dwelling unit.

ORDER

Sudip Ahluwalia, Presiding Member.—This Consumer Complaint has been filed under Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and, seeking refund of the deposited amount along with ancillary reliefs.

2. The factual background, in brief, is that the Opposite Parties announced the launch of a luxury integrated township project named “Amstoria” in Sectors-102 and 102A, Gurgaon, Haryana. The project aimed to offer various luxury housing options, including Farm Villas, Country Floors, and Lutyens Plots. Attracted by the promotion, assurances, and representations made by the Opposite Parties, the Complainants decided to book a unit in the project. They made an initial booking payment of Rs.15,00,000/- and were subsequently allotted Unit No. A-26-SF, which had a Super Area of 2,833 Sq. Ft. The total agreed consideration for the unit was Rs.1,57,97,215/-.

3. On 06.12.2012, after the payment of Rs.29,76,900/-, the Opposite Parties executed a Floor Buyer’s Agreement with the Complainants. However the Agreement contained several one-sided, arbitrary, and unreasonable clauses. They were forced to comply, as any disagreement would have resulted in the forfeiture of their Ernest money, equivalent to 25% of the total consideration. The unit, as per the layout plan annexed to the agreement, was specifically described as a 3BHK. According to the terms of the Agreement, possession of the unit was to be handed over within 30 months (24 months + 6 months grace period), meaning the deadline for delivery was June 2015. Believing in the Opposite Parties’ promise of timely delivery, the Complainants made payments as per the Construction Linked Plan. By 03.03.2014, they had paid Rs.1,07,90,364/-. In order to continue making these payments on time. The Complainants had to take a loan of Rs.1,13,90,000/- from UCO Bank, which was later transferred to SBI. However, after March 2013, the construction of the project stalled. The last payment demand raised by the Opposite Parties was on 03.03.2014, and no further demand was made until 20.03.2017, indicating a three-year construction halt without any communication to the Complainants. By 20.03.2017, the Complainants had paid Rs.1,35,48,628/- to the Opposite Parties. On 29.11.2018, the Opposite Parties sent a letter offering possession of the unit, but this letter indicated that the Super Area of the unit had been changed to 3,106 Sq. Ft., a clear deviation from the 2,833 Sq. Ft. stated in the Agreement. This unilateral change in layout plans was not communicated to the Complainants, and it led to the Opposite Parties demanding an exorbitant additional payment of Rs.78,15,445/-.

4. Furthermore, the Opposite Parties had not only altered the Super Area but had also converted the terrace space into a room with a tin roof. The originally allotted 3BHK unit had now been transformed into a 4BHK without the Complainants’ consent. The Complainants hired a service called e-Ghar to inspect the unit, and an inspection report dated 21.01.2019 revealed severe deficiencies, making the unit uninhabitable. These defects included conversion of the terrace into a room, no electrical wiring throughout the unit, absence of flooring in any of the bedrooms, use of gypsum plaster instead of cement causing dampness, lack of final paint, sanitary fittings, deep cleaning and inadequate security measures. Despite the Complainants’ repeated representations and emails to the Opposite Parties in December 2018, addressing the additional charges, the altered Super Area, and the conversion of the terrace into a room, the Opposite Parties did not resolve these issues. Instead, they continued to raise demands for payment.

5. As the possession of the unit was initially promised by June 2015, the Opposite Parties did not only fail to deliver it within the promised timeframe but also offered a defective, altered, and uninhabitable unit. The Complainants assert that fr