Failure by the Opposite Party to deliver possession within the stipulated time constituted a deficiency in service, entitling the Complainants to a refund with interest.

1. According to the Complainants on 19/09/2012, they applied for allotment of a residential unit in the project "Sovereign Floors", Esencia, Sector - 67, Gurgaon Haryana developed by the Opposite Party. The unit was booked for residential purpose of the Complainants. The Opposite Party allotted residential unit No. D - 1567 - SF, 2nd Floor, vide allotment letter dated 26/09/2012. Consideration payable was Rs.1,60,00,000 for the 2198 sq. ft. unit. Pursuant to the allotment letter, the Complainants and Opposite Party signed Floor Buyer Agreement dated 05/10/2012. According to the Agreement, in case of delay in payment, the Complainants were required to pay interest @ 18% p.a. for three months and 21% p.a. beyond the delay of three months. Possession of the unit was to be handed over within 36 months from the date of the agreement with an extension of 6 months, subject to receipt of requisite building plans, approvals, permissions and force majeure etc. In case of failure to deliver possession within 36 months, the Opposite Party was required to pay delay compensation @ Rs.10 per sq. ft. per month of the total super area of the unit. The Complainants, vide letter dated 08/10/2012 requested the Opposite Party to covert the plan to subvention payment scheme. As per subvention payment scheme, the Complainants were to pay 20% of the sale consideration and rest of the amount during 24 months from the loan. The Opposite Party raised demand of Rs.38,17,585 out of which the Complainants paid Rs.1,31,835 on 13/12/2012 and Rs.8 lakh on 19/01/2013 from their own resources and Rs.28,85,750 on 28/02/2013 by way of home loan. The Opposite Party, however, demanded delayed payment interest from 26/12/2012 to 28/02/2013. The Opposite Party also changed the payment plan from subvention to construction linked plan and denied the Complainants of the benefit of the subvention scheme, due to which the Complainants had to bear high rate of interest burden. The Complainants also suffered loss of Rs.3,34,318 due to interest. The Opposite Party, vide letter dated 25/10/2012, demanded Rs.6.40 lakh as PLC charges. The Complainants requested the Opposite Party to withdraw PLC charges but the Opposite Party insisted on payment of PLC charges. On 01/12/2012, the Opposite Party issued third demand for Rs.19,74,710 and fourth demand for Rs.18,72,765 on 26/12/2012. Thereafter, on 30/01/2013, the Opposite Party issued pre - cancellation notice to the Complainant.

2. The Complainants filed a Complaint under S.22C of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 before the Lok Adalat, Gurgaon. The same was dismissed with liberty to the Complainants to approach appropriate Forum.

3. Regarding their grievance relating to PLC charges, the Complainants also filed another Consumer Complaint before the District Forum, Gurgaon in January, 2016. Regarding the grievance relating to subvention scheme, the Complainants filed Consumer Complaint before the District Forum, Gurgaon in November, 2016. Thereafter, the Complainants withdrew the said Consumer Complaints. The District Forum, therefore, vide order dated 16/03/2017, dismissed the Complaints as withdrawn with liberty to the Complainants to approach the competent Forum having jurisdiction.

4. The Complainants paid Rs.1,42,97,983 as on 22/11/2014. The Opposite Party, however, had not offered possession of the unit even after expiry of 42 months. On 23/12/2016, the Complainants gave notice to the Opposite Party seeking refund of the deposited amount with interest @ 21% per annu