ORDER

Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member—This complaint filed under Section 21 (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the “Act”) alleges deficiency in service by the Opposite Party in delay in handing over possession of the apartment booked by the Complainants in a project promoted and executed by the Opposite Party.

2. Upon notice, Opposite Party contested the complaint by way of written statement. Complainants thereafter filed their rejoinder. Parties filed their evidence by way of affidavit. Short synopsis of arguments was also filed by both the parties.

3. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the Complainant had booked an apartment in the residential project “Hamilton Heights,” located in Sector-37, Faridabad, Haryana, for his residential purpose. His grievance pertains to allegations of unfair trade practices, fraudulent conduct, and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant, influenced by the opposite party’s promotional materials and verbal assurances, booked Apartment No. C-903, measuring 2033 sq. ft., on 02.05.2012, for a total consideration of Rs.78,43,314, exclusive of registration charges and stamp duty. Possession was promised within 24 months from the date of booking, i.e., by June 2014. However, the opposite party failed to honor the agreed timeline and subsequently persuaded the complainant to shift to another unit in Tower B.

4. The complainant agreed to shift to Apartment No. B-1101 based on assurances of immediate possession, subject to signing a new agreement. Despite these assurances, possession was delayed further, by the opposite party. The complainant paid additional amounts, including Rs.5,84,671/- purportedly for an increase in the super area. However, subsequent inquiries revealed no actual enhancement in the apartment’s area, rendering the additional demand baseless and fraudulent. Eventually, possession of Apartment No. B-1101 was handed over in August 2014, after the complainant had paid a total of Rs.86,79,871.

5. The complainant contends that the possession was riddled with deficiencies. Essential amenities promised by the opposite party, such as power backup and separate parking ramps, were not provided. Additionally, facilities like the club and swimming pool remained incomplete, undermining the quality and utility of the property. Furthermore, possession was handed over without the requisite Occupancy Certificate from the Director of Town and Country Planning (DTCP), Haryana, in contravention of legal requirements, thereby rendering the possession illegal and devoid of title rights.

6. Upon further scrutiny, the complainant discovered that the opposite party had levied fraudulent charges under the pretext of an increase in the super area, despite there being no actual enhancement. An architect’s certificate confirmed that the super area of the delivered apartment matched the originally booked unit. The complainant also alleged that the opposite party had overcharged on account of External Development Charges (EDC) and Internal Development Charges (IDC). While Rs.290 per sq. ft. was collected under these heads, the authorized rate was Rs.188.136 per sq. ft., as revealed through information obtained via RTI applications.

7. The complainant asserts that the opposite party collected Rs.13.51 crore under EDC/IDC from buyers but deposited only Rs.8.97 crore with the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA), retaining an excess of Rs.4.53 crore without justification. This misappropriation, along with the demand for non-existent super area charges, constitutes a gross breach of trust and unfair trade practices.

8. Complainant contends that the possession offered was in violation of Clause 11 of Memo No. 11051 issued by the DTCP, Haryana, which prohibits occupancy without a valid Occupancy Certificate. The complainant became aware of this non-compliance through RTI disclosures and updates from the Residents Welfare Association. This lapse h