Failure to deliver possession as per agreement necessitates compensation for delay, reaffirming consumer rights.

1. The complainant booked a residential flat with the appellant in a project, namely, ˜Wellington Heights' which the appellant is developing in Mohali. Flat No. J - 0303 admeasuring 1,160 sq.ft. was allotted to the complainant for a basic price of Rs. 30,74,000. The total cost of the flat came to Rs. 34,83,600. The price of the flat was payable in instalments linked with the construction and the last instalment comprising 10% of the basic sale price was payable on offer of possession. The case of the complainant is that despite she having paid Rs. 33,18,000 to the appellant, the possession of the flat, which ought to have been offered by 3.5.2015, was not offered. The complainant, therefore, approached the concerned State Commission by way of a consumer complaint seeking possession of the allotted flat along with compensation, etc. She also sought refund of the amount of Rs. 50,000 which had been collected from her towards the car parking.

2. The complaint was resisted by the appellant which inter alia alleged that on completion of the construction in February 2016, the complainant was requested to make payment of the balance amount of Rs. 11,00,931.99 but the complainant did not make whole of the said payment, she having paid only Rs. 3,18,543 as against the demand of Rs. 11,00,931.99.

3. Vide impugned order dated 20.9.2017, the State Commission directed the appellant to pay interest @ 12% p.a. to the complainant w.e.f. 3.5.2015 till the actual date of delivery of possession. The demand in respect of maintenance charges and club membership was set aside. However, demand due to escalation in the price on account of increase in the super area was maintained by the State Commission. The appellant was directed to deliver possession of the apartment to the complainant with the requisite completion certificate and requisite approvals within three months from the date of the order after complete renovation / repairs. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the appellant is before this Commission by way of this appeal.

4. As far as the maintenance charges are concerned, the same cannot be claimed by the appellant before delivery of possession to the complainant. Therefore, I hold that the maintenance charges shall be payable with effect from the date on which the possession of the flat complete in all respects is actually delivered to the complainant.
As far as club charges are concerned, the complainant does not want to use the club facility. Therefore, the club charges shall not be payable by her to the appellant.

5. It is an admitted position that initially flat was booked by Smt. Maya Sharma and Sh. Surinder Kumar Sharma. The agreement between them and the appellant was executed on 3.5.2012. In terms of Clause 6.1 of the said agreement the possession was expected to be delivered to the buyers by 3.5.2015. The said allotment was purchased by the complainant from Smt. Maya Sharma and Sh. Surinder Kumar Sharma on 19.7.2013 and the transfer was duly endorsed in her name. This is also the case of the appellant that the requisite occupancy certificate in respect of the allotted flat was obtained by them in October, 2016. However, the consumer complaint had been instituted on 23.5.2016 about 5 months before the part of the occupancy certificate was obtained by the appellant.

6. This is not the case of the complainant that the construction had been substantially done by the time the allotment was transferred in her name. Hence, she could not have expected delivery of possession by 3.5.2015. She knew at the time of purchase by her that she was not likely to get possession by that date. Therefore, in view of the dec