The complainants lacked grounds for compensation for delays as per the contract, which was upheld by the court.

1. Heard Mr. Santosh Krishnan, Advocate, for the complainants and Mr. Manish Paul, Advocate, for the opposite party.

2. 8 Sets of home buyers have filed above complaint for directing the opposite party to (i) deliver possession of the mini township project "Larica Green Hamlet", complete in all respect; as per specifications, advertised in Brochure and mentioned in agreements of the home buyers; (ii) pay compensation to all the home buyers in the form of interest @18% per annum on their deposit, for the delayed period of possession; (iii) pay compensation @ Rs.1 per sq.ft. per month of the entire constructed area for a period of two years into maintenance escrow fund, for upkeep of the project; (iv) carryout maintenance and upkeep activities of the project in terms of the agreement; (v) pay costs of the litigation; and (vi) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. This Commission, vide order dated 4.1.2018, granted permission to file the complaint in representative capacity under S.12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the notices were published in newspapers.

3. The complainants stated that Larica Estates Limited (the opposite party) was a company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of development and construction of group housing project and selling its unit to the prospective buyers. The opposite party launched a mini township project, consisting group housing complex, commercial complex, bunglow, cottage and row houses etc., over an area of 68 bigha 18 lachha land, in the name of "Larica Green Hamlet" at village Bongara, mouza Chayani near Mirza, district Kamrup, Assam, at a distance of 30 K.M. from Guwahati, in the year 2010 and made wide publicity of its facilities and amenities through electronic and print media. The opposite party represented that first 100 allottees would get free membership of the club worth Rs.one lac. Induced with the rosy pictures of the project and believing upon the representations and promises of the opposite party, above 8 complainants and other home buyers entered into an agreement for sale on different dates in between 2011 to 2014, for purchasing their individual unit. The agreement provides payment plan as "construction link payment plan", in which, total consideration was payable in 10 instalments. As per demand, the home buyers including the complainants deposited the instalments in time but possession was delayed to them from one year to four years. Clause - 14 of the agreement provides 24 months period from the date of the agreement, for handing over possession. Under clause - 13 of the agreement, the opposite party undertook to develop the amenities, facilities and common part / area. Under clause - 20(a), the opposite party undertook to indemnify the customers for all losses, damages, costs etc. due to non - fulfilment of its obligation. In the brochure, the opposite party promised as follows: (i) Land fully developed with independent boundary, gates etc. (ii) over 70% open area green. (iii) Each home with its own garden and car park. (iv) Exclusive shopping mall. (v) Departmental store. (vi) 24 hours drinking water. (vii) Round the clock security. (viii) ATM facility. (ix) Doorstep maintenance. (x) Club house. (xi) Car parking for guest. (xii) Club consisting of gym, swimming pool, spa, tennis Courts, restaurant, cafeteria. The opposite party advertised in newspaper on 10.4.2010, that (a) Fully developed land with row house / bunglow. (b) No loss of common space. (c) Each plot with own garden. (d) Compound wall and independent gate. (e) Private terrace. (f) Personal garden. The opposite party has committed following deficiency in service: - (