The court affirmed consumer rights to timely possession and reasonable compensation despite contractual waivers, emphasizing obligations of developers in real estate transactions.

1. In the Project, christened as “The Enclave” situated at Sector - 66, Gurgaon, Haryana, admeasuring super area 1920 sq. ft., launched by the Opposite Party, a Residential Unit, being Unit No. TEN - P - F01-03, was purchased by the Complainants in order to provide their family with quality standard of living in a spacious apartment. The Complainants are the subsequent Buyers of the Unit that had been purchased by them from one Ms. Archana Tanwar (hereinafter referred to as the Original Buyer) on 5.7.2013. Initially, the Original Buyer had booked one such Unit in the Project known as “The Meadows” of the Opposite Party but on the option given to her by the Opposite Party vide letter dated 8.6.2009 (Annexure C - 2), the booking was transferred to a new Project, namely, “The Enclave” and the Unit in question had been allotted to her vide Provisional Allotment Letter dated 13.1.2010 (Annexure C - 3). The sale consideration for the said Unit was Rs. 62,36,784 and the amount of Rs. 60,33,230 paid by her towards the initial Unit had been adjusted towards the consideration of the new Unit in question. On 14.9.2010, the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement, hereinafter referred to as the Agreement (Annexure C - 4), was executed between the Original Buyer and the Opposite Party. Subsequently on 5.7.2013 an Agreement to Sell was executed between the Original Buyer and the Complainants, which had been duly endorsed by the Opposite Party in favour of the Complainants on the said date (see page 116 of the Complaint), and the Complainants had paid a sum of Rs. 70,00,000 to the Original Buyer as the sale consideration for the Unit in question. vide Nomination letter dated 12.7.2013, the transfer was also acknowledged by the Opposite Party. Both the Agreement to Sell dated 5.7.2013 and the Nomination letter dated 12.7.2013 are annexed to the Complaint as Annexure C - 5 (Colly.).

2. As per Clause 14(a) of the Agreement, the possession of the Unit was to be delivered / handed over within 30 months, including a grace period of 6 months, from the date of start of construction. The Opposite Party was to handover possession by 21.2.2013 as the Project had started on 21.8.2010. The said Clause of the Agreement reads as under:
“14(a) Subject to terms of this clause and the Allottee(s) having complied with all the terms and conditions of this Agreement and not being in default under any of the provisions of this Agreement and upon complying with all provisions, formalities, documentation etc. as prescribed by the Developer, the Developer proposes to hand over the possession of the Unit within 24 months from the start of construction. The Allottee(s) agrees and understands that the Developer shall be entitled to a grace period, for applying and obtaining the occupation certificate in respect of the Complex.”

3. It is averred that a sum of Rs. 60,33,230 stands paid by the Complainants to the OppositeParty, which is in excess of Rs. 1,29,923 as per the Revised Statement issued by the Opposite Party to the Complainants.

4. Though, as per the assurances given by the Opposite Party at the time of purchase of the Unit in question by the Complainants from the Original Buyer, the Unit was required to be handed over to the Complainants by October, 2013 but the Opposite Party failed to deliver possession of the Unit within the promised time period. The Complainants vide their various emails communicated their concerns to the Opposite Party, which kept on giving false assurances to the effect that the Occupation Certificate will be applied for in the first quarter of 2014. vide their emails dated 30.4.2015 and 18.4.2017 (which had been sent