Executing court cannot go behind decree to grant interest on rebates or entertain fresh claims on sale deed clauses or settled issues like club charges, strictly enforcing decree terms without enlargement.

ORDER

SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J

1. Briefly stated relevant facts are that the present complaint bearing no 2984/2017 titled as Swatantra Bala sahni and another V DLF Home Developers under sections 21(a)(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was filed before this Commission by complainants. The complainants were allottees in the Project DLF Capital Greens at Shivaji Marg, New Delhi proposed to be developed by DLF Homes Developers Limited/the opposite party. The opposite party proposed to develop flats with various amenities. The complainants were issued allotment letters and have paid the entire of the sale consideration to the opposite party. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the flats within stipulated period. The complainants alleged deficiency in service against the opposite party and in present complaint sought following reliefs:-

a) To direct the OP to hand over possession of the same apartment no.CGL026 as agreed in the Apartment Buyers Agreement dated 26.04.2010 alongwith two car parkings, including Parking No. PL3062 already allotted, without insisting upon signing of the illegal Indemnity cum Undertaking by the Complainants;

b) To withdraw unexplained and unjustified demand of amounts totaling Rs.7,80,700.81 as mentioned by the OP in columns 1(b), (d), (e), (g) & (I) of its Final Statement of Account dated 27.06.2017;

c) To compensate the Complainants at the rate of @ 18% for the period of delay i.e. Rs.1,05,31,982/- as calculated and mentioned in Para No. 33(ii)' above instead of Rs.4,52,919/- paid by the OP and as mentioned by it . in column T of the Credits of its Final Statement of Account dated 27.06.2017 and thus to pay the balance compensation of Rs.1,00,79,063/- to the Complainants;

d) To compensate the Complainants for unilateral change in the plan of the apartment and change in the parking space from PL3030 to PL3062;

e) To compensate the Complainants for shdrtfaii in the area of the apartment;

f) To refund Rs.3,00,000/- illegaily charged for parking space and Rs.95,735.81 as Service Tax;

g) pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice; and h) allow costs.

2. The opposite party filed reply wherein stated that despite best efforts to complete project, it could not be completed within stipulated time due to reasons beyond control of the opposite party. The opposite party has demonstrated consistent diligence and promptness in pursuing all requisite sanctions and ensuring that construction has proceeded at the maximum possible pace under the prevailing circumstances. In respect of Phase-II, the opposite party had applied for approval of the layout plans as early as December 2009 which was contemporaneous with the launch of the said phase. The approval for the layout plans was duly received in June 2010 and immediately thereafter, in August 2010, the opposite party filed an application for approval of the building plans. The approval from the competent authorities, however, was not granted until 20.10.2011, representing a period of approximately one year and two months, duration considerably in excess of the usual and normal processing time of three to six months. The opposite party throughout the course of the project has maintained transparency and kept the complainants duly informed of the progress of the project as well as the impediments encountered, through writ