Failure to deliver possession constitutes deficiency in service, validating consumer refunds with interest.

ORDER

JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER

This Consumer Complaint has been filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and, seeking refund of the deposited amount along with ancillary reliefs.

2. The factual background, in brief, is that the Complainant saw an advertisement issued by the Opposite Party in 2006 announcing a large residential township to be developed at NH-6, Salap Junction, Howrah-711 403. Seeking a peaceful home near Kolkata for herself and her husband, she visited the Opposite Party’s office at Chowringhee Court in November’ 2006. The Company officials assured her that construction would be completed within a fixed schedule and supplied detailed brochures. Relying on those representations, the Complainant applied for and was provisionally allotted a Twin House (Category II × 20), on plot D/05/04, comprising roughly 220 sq. m. of land with a built-up area of 3,080.44 sq ft. She paid an initial amount of Rs. 6.00 lakh, which the Opposite Party accepted on 22.11.2006, and issued a provisional Allotment Letter promising sale of the Unit for Rs. 59,51,500/- payable on demand. The Opposite Party undertook to deliver possession by 31.12.2008, extendable by six months, and agreed to compensate any delay at State Bank of India savings-rate interest. The Complainant obtained a housing loan of Rs. 50,51,000/- from Punjab National Bank on 16.01.2007 at 9.25% p.a. floating interest and the Bank disbursed the loan directly to the Opposite Party.

3. By a revised Allotment Letter dated 15.05.2007, the parties rescheduled the payment plan (without altering the possession date) and the Opposite Party repeated its commitment to hand over the finished unit by 31st December 2008 plus a six-month grace period failing which, interest compensation would be paid. Between June’ 2006 and June’ 2007, the Complainant paid Rs. 57,43,197/-, being about 97% of the consideration leaving only Rs. 2,08,302.50/- outstanding, which she has always been ready to pay upon possession. The Opposite Party failed to deliver possession by the contractual deadline. Repeated letters-including one dated 23.01.2010, elicited no firm hand-over date. In January’ 2011, the Opposite Party officials informally blamed Policy issues and promised to appoint a reputed Contractor. By letter dated 07.06.2011, the Opposite Party stated that it had engaged “Punj Lloyd Ltd.” and would hand over the Unit by December’ 2013. During a site visit on 20.07.2013, the Complainant discovered negligible progress and she recorded her protest in a letter dated 16.08.2013. The Opposite Party's E-mail of 03.05.2014 merely asserted that foundation and plinth-beam work was complete. Meanwhile the Punjab National Bank, by letter of 27.04.2015, pressed the Complainant to execute the title deed. She in turn demanded immediate completion vide letter dated 05.06.2015. The Opposite Party gave only vague assurances. In March’ 2016, the Opposite Party offered “temporary alternate accommodation” within the Project instead of handing over the contracted house. The Complainant rejected that proposal by letter of 16.03.2016 and insisted on possession within fifteen days, but again to no avail.

4. Through her Counsel, the Complainant then got issued a Legal Notice on 20.12.2017 at the Opposite Party’s registered Kolkata address which was returned marked “moved”. A second Notice sent on 05.01.2018 to the Salap site address was duly served. She had demanded either executi