The court affirmed that delays by builders in possession delivery create a continuing cause of action, entitling consumers to remedies under the Consumer Protection Act.

ORDER

DR. SADHNA SHANKER, MEMBER

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Mrs. Amita Shahi, the complainant, under section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) against Emaar MGF Land Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘builder’) alleging deficiency in service in not handing over the physical possession of the apartment with promised amenities within the stipulated period.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is an allottee of Unit bearing No. C-601, 6th Floor, Block-C, having super area of 3175 sq. ft. in the project known as “Sky Terraces, The Palm Drive” at Village Badshahpur, Tehsil and District Gurugram, Haryana, being developed by the builder. The total consideration of the apartment is ?1,79,67,855/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy- Nine Lakhs Sixty-Seven Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty-Five Only). It is alleged that pursuant to the booking of the apartment and payment of the booking amount, the builder executed an Apartment Buyer’s Agreement dated 05.03.2008 and as per Clause 14(a) of the agreement, the builder promised to deliver possession of the apartment by December 2010, with a grace period of 90 days. But the builder failed to hand over possession of the apartment in question within the stipulated period. It is further alleged that on 27.04.2015, the builder informed that it had received the occupation certificate for the Tower No. A, B, C, D, E, L, M, N in the project and the process of handing over physical poosessioni of the units would commence within 30 days of that letter. It is pertinent to note that under Clause 13(a) of the agreement, any delay in payment by the allottee attracts interest at the rate of 15% per annum compounded quarterly, whereas delay in delivery of possession by the builder entitles the complainant only to a nominal compensation of ?5Z- per sq. ft. of super area per month, reflecting the grossly unfair and one-sided nature of the Agreemept It is further stated that the Letter of Intimation of Possession, instead of resolving the hardship suffered by the complainant, further aggravated her grievances, as it allegedly contained unreasonable, unfair, and fraudulent terms. Notably, the said letter failed to disclose or account for the compensation payable to the complainant for the inordinate delay of over four years in handing over possession of the apartment Furthermore, the builder has allegedly charged an additional amount from the complainant towards reserved car parking slots, which is contrary to settled law and amounts to unfair trade practice as per the complainant. Hence, the present complaint.

3. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the buider, the complainant has filed the instant complaint with the following reliefs :

(i) Direct the Respondent Company to handover possession of Apartment, to the Complainant, complete in all respects and in conformity with the Buyer's Agreement dated Sth March, 2008 and for the consideration mentioned therein (without any excess demand for increase in area or otherwise), with all additional facilities and as per quality standards promised, and execute all the necessary and required documents in respect of the said apartment in favour of the Complainant;

(ii) Direct the Respondent to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the amount deposited by the Complainant with the Respondent Company, with effect from March, 2011, till the date actual physical possession as per clause (a) above is handed over by the Respondent Company, along with all ne