Delayed possession of the apartment constitutes deficiency of service under the Consumer Protection Act, entitling the complainant to compensation.

1. The present complaint has been filed before this commission under S.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging unfair trade practices and deficiency in service by the opposite party, wherein the complainant has prayed for the following reliefs:
(a) This Hon'ble Forum may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to immediately get the Registry executed / done with the concerned sub-registrar / authority, in favour of the Complainant of FLAT NO. 1801, 17th FLOOR, SUPERTECH 34 PAVILLION, SITUATED AT PLOT NO C - 78, SECTOR 34, NOIDA, without the complainant's paying extra money.
(b) This Hon'ble Forum may kindly be pleased to award a sum of Rs. 19,00,000 [Rupees Nineteen lakh only] towards emotional, physical, mental harassment and tortured, financial losses {towards rents, EMI's, Interest for delaying handing over possession, etc.}, Humiliation and agony suffered by the complainant and his family members at the hands of the respondent company on various occasions, till date + club membership amount to be refunded.
(c) Cost of the present proceedings be also awarded in favour of the complainant and against the respondents.
(d) Such other or further orders may be kindly be passed and reliefs granted in favour of the Complainant and against the Respondents as this Hon'ble Forum may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present complaint are that the complainant booked an apartment in the project of the Opposite party by the name and style '34 Pavilion, Aristo Heights, Sector 34, Noida' located at Noida on 3.3.2010, after making a payment of 10% of the Total Cost i.e. Rs. 6,30,935. Vide allotment letter dated 8.3.2010, a flat bearing No. AR / 1801 on 17th floor of Aristo tower, 34 Pavilion, at Plot No. C 78, Sector 34 Noida, admeasuring 1595 sq. ft. was allotted to the complainant for a total sale consideration of Rs. 63,09,350. As per the allotment letter, the opposite party was to handover the possession of the flat by July 2012.

3. As per the payment plan, the complainants were to pay 10% of the cost of the flat at the time of booking, 85% of the cost was to be paid within 45 days from the date of allotment letter and balance 5% was to be paid by the complainant on offer of possession. The complainant, having already paid an amount of Rs. 6,30,935 (i.e. 10% of the sale consideration) at the time of booking on 3.3.2010 to the opposite party, further made a payment of Rs. 53,62,948 (i.e. 85% of the sale consideration) on 16.4.2010.In order to satisfy the demands of the Opposite Party, the complainant got sanctioned a loan amounting to Rs. 28,00,000 from HDFC Ltd.

4. On 19.12.2013,the complainant received the letter inviting Offer of Possession alongwith statement of dues, wherein, an amount of Rs. 5,00,958 was stated to be due. However, on the same date only, another Payment Demand Letter was also received by the complainant wherein the amount mentioned on the letter was to the tune of Rs. 3,30,015 and on the document attached with the letter as Annexure A was Rs. 5,38,781. There was ambiguity in the demands raised by the Opposite Party since on a given day i.e. 19.12.2013, the Opposite Party demanded three different sums as the amount payable by the complainant.

5. On being harassed by the Opposite Party to make the payment of the balance amount, failure to do which would lead to the forfeiture of the entire amount paid by the complainant, the complainant honoured the demands of the Opposite Party.

6. The complainant received a letter dated 24.1.2014 f