Failure to deliver possession within agreed timelines constitutes a deficiency in service under consumer protection laws.

1. Heard Mr. Satyavikram Jagtap, Advocate, for the complainant.

2. Above complaint has been filed, for directing the opposite parties to (i) complete the construction of the project forthwith and deliver possession of the flats, complete in all respect with amenities as per agreement, to the home buyers within a period of three months and execute conveyance deeds in their favour, (ii) pay compensation, for delay in possession in the form of interest @12% per annum, on the deposit of the home buyers, from due date of possession till the delivery of possession, (iii) if possession is not delivered within three months, pay compensation, in the form of interest @18% per annum on the deposit of the home buyers, after three months, (iv) restrain the opposite party from demanding maintenance charges, till the execution of the conveyance deeds, (v) pay Rs. 7 lacs, as the costs of litigation; and (vi) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. The complaint has been filed for the benefits of 66 home buyers in the project Sulochana City at mauje Pimple Nilakh, Talluqa Haveli, district Pune, launched by the opposite parties.Sulochana City Home Buyers Association was a voluntary association of the home buyers of the project Sulochana City and registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860. The objects of the association to pursue, propagate, advance, safeguard and promote the interest of the homebuyers. The complainant stated that Nandgude Patil Developers Private Limited (opposite party - 1)was a company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of development and construction of group housing projects and selling its units to the prospective buyers. Mr. Vilas Eknath Nandgude was its Director. The opposite parties launched a group housing project in the name of Sulochana City at mauje Pimple Nilakh, Talluqa Haveli, district Pune, in the year 2009 and made wide publicity. The members of the complainant booked the flatson different dates between 2009 to 2015 and deposited booking amount. The opposite parties issued Provisional Allotment Letters and shortly thereafter executed Builder Buyers Agreements in favour of the home buyers. Payment plan was Construction Linked Payment Plan, underwhich total payment has to be made in 11 instalments. Last two instalments of 5% each were payable at the time of internal colouring and fittings and offer of possession. As per clause - 12 of the agreement, possession of the flat has to be given on or before 31.12.2012. The opposite parties realised 90% to 95% of the sale consideration from the home buyers. After expiry of the due date of possession, the home buyers visited the site and found that the construction was incomplete. The opposite parties assured that they would complete the construction and offer possession till June, 2012, failing which; they would give interest @12% per annum on the deposits of the home buyers. But the opposite parties neither offered possession till June, 2012 nor gave interest as promised. Vishwa Vijay Singh Pawar (Flat No. 1005, in Wing ˜B filed a complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Pune, which was allowed vide order dated 20.9.2013, directing the opposite parties to handover possession of the flat to the home buyer and pay compensation of Rs. 50,000 and cost of Rs. 2000 . The opposite parties challenged the order of District Forum in Appeal No. 51/2014 and Appeal No. 134/2014. On the statement of opposite party - 2 that the dispute between the parties was settled on 25.4.2014, these appeals were dismissed vide order dated 31.10.2014. The opposite parties file