Failure to deliver possession of property by the agreed date constitutes a breach of contract, justifying a consumer's claim for a refund under the Consumer Protection Act.

ORDER

Binoy Kumar, Presiding Member

1. The present Consumer Complaint, i.e., CC/2256/2019, is filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, “the Act”), by Mr. Mukesh Kumar Gupta and Mrs. Prem Lata Garg (hereinafter referred to as the “Complainants”) against M/S Lodha Group, Jawala Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Lodha Developers Pvt. Ltd., and Macrotech Developers Ltd., all through their respective Directors (hereinafter referred to as the “Opposite Parties/Builders”), seeking refund of the amount paid towards purchase of a flat along with interest, compensation and other reliefs.

2. The brief facts leading up to the present Complaint are that the Complainants, lured by the promises of the Opposite Parties, booked a flat in the project of the Opposite Parties called Lodha Codename Blue Moon which later was renamed as Lodha Park (hereinafter referred to as the “Project”), located opposite Hard Rock Cafe, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400025. The Opposite Parties, vide allotment letter dated 28.03.2013, allotted the Complainants a 1052 sq. ft. 3 BHK flat, No. 2102, located on the 21st floor of B Wing, along with two car parking spaces (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Unit’), in the building known as Allura (ALPHA) within the said Project, for a total consideration of Rs. 4,13,36,163/- (Rupees Four Crore Thirteen Lakh Thirty-Six Thousand One Hundred Sixty- Three Only). The relevant details of the Unit of the Complainants and other related details is in the table as under:

there were no other documents adverse to the title of the company i.e. Jwala Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. However, the Complainants stated that the existence of the said sale deeds and mortgages, as noted in the report, casts doubt on the clear title of the company in respect of the land on which the housing project is developed. Therefore, it is uncertain whether the Complainants will have a clear and undisputed title and ownership rights over the flat allotted to them.

4. The Complainants stated that time was an essential condition of the Agreement to Sell dated 30.07.2013 (hereinafter referred to as Agreement), executed between the Complainants and the Opposite Parties. As per Clause 11 of the said Agreement, the Opposite Parties were required to obtain the Occupation Certificate and offer possession of the Unit for fit-outs by 31.12.2017. Clause 11.2 of the Agreement also allowed the Opposite Parties a grace period of one additional year to offer possession, taking the deadline to be 31.12.2018. However, despite the Complainants having paid approximately 97.45% of the total consideration as and when demanded, the Opposite Parties failed to hand over possession of the Unit even after the expiry of this extended timeline.

5. The Complainants further stated that, having no other option, they issued a legal notice dated 01.04.2019 to Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2, requesting confirmation on whether the Unit