Breach of contractual obligations in housing redevelopment led to consumer compensation under the Consumer Protection Act.

ORDER

JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER This Consumer Complaint has been filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , seeking possession of the Flats or in the alternative the market value of the Flats along with other ancillary reliefs.

2. The factual background, in brief, is that the Complainants entered into a registered Agreement for Permanent Alternative Accommodation dated 20.09.2013 with Opposite Party No.1, Sahaj Ankur Realtors, in respect of their tenanted Flats Nos. 3 and 4 in Building A, Madhav Baug, Andheri (East), Mumbai. Under the said Agreement, the Opposite Party, claiming ownership of the property by virtue of a Deed of Slump Sale of Business dated 16.11.2011, undertook redevelopment of the property and committed to allot the Complainants, on ownership basis, Flat No. 801 admeasuring 700 sq. ft. carpet area in B Wing along with podium parking, within 24 months from issuance of the Commencement Certificate with a grace period of six months. Out of the said area, 650 sq. ft. was free of cost, while 50 sq. ft. was to be purchased by the Complainants at Rs. 22,800/- per sq. ft., aggregating to Rs. 11,40,000/-. The Opposite Party also acknowledged receipt of Rs. 6,00,000/- paid by the Complainants as further consideration. The Agreement further obligated the Opposite Party to earmark the Flat and parking on sanctioned plans, furnish an unconditional performance Bank Guarantee of Rs. 2.00 crores, pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for dislocation, and pay monthly transit rent of Rs. 25,000/- with escalation clauses, along with brokerage and shifting charges, which obligations were admittedly not fully complied with.

3. The Complainants allege that due to delay in commencement and completion of the project and failure to obtain approvals, the Opposite Party executed a Deed of Indemnity-cum-Undertaking dated 10.01.2015, pursuant to which the Complainants handed over vacant possession of their premises on 12.01.2015. Under the said Deed, the Opposite Party undertook to obtain approval for Flat No. 801 within six months (time being of the essence), failing which it agreed to allot two alternative Flats bearing Nos. 301 and 302 admeasuring 650 sq. ft. and 667 sq. ft. carpet area respectively in B Wing, free of cost, which allotment letters were placed in escrow with a Solicitor. It was further agreed that if neither the agreed Flat nor the escrow Flats could be provided, the Opposite Party would pay the Complainants the market value for 1317 sq. ft. carpet area plus 25% compensation, and that payment for the additional 50 sq. ft. would remain suspended till approved plans were furnished.

4. It is the case of the Complainants that although certain payments towards rent, brokerage and part compensation were made in December 2014, the balance compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- remained unpaid. They further alleged that pursuant to a Joint Venture Agreement dated 29.04.2014 between the Opposite Party No.1 and the Opposite Party No.2, development was taken up in the name of the Opposite Party No.3, and thereafter the Opposite Parties stopped paying transit rent, raised illegal demands for payment towards the additional 50 sq. ft., and failed to provide approved plans. Despite Legal Notices and repeated correspondence through Solicitors and the Escrow Agent between July 2018 and December 2018, the Opposite Parties failed to comply, resulting in release of escrow documents to the Complainants on 17.12.2018. The Complainants further alleged that the Opposite Parties changed building plans without consent and fr