The developer is liable for delay in possession irrespective of later external factors, emphasizing the importance of contractually stipulated timelines.

PER JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI

This complaint has been filed by the complainant, seeking possession of the unit purchased by her alongwith compensation for the period of delay etc., as she is aggrieved of delay and laches; deficiency in providing service, negligence and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties no.1 to 4. It has been alleged by the complainant in this complaint that despite the fact that she has made payment of substantial sale consideration of Rs.94,42,846.24, for the period from 01.06.2015 to 02.12.2023, yet, the opposite parties no.1 to 4 have not offered possession of the unit for want of development and construction at the project site. Details with regard to the project in dispute; unit purchased by the complainant; payments made by her etc. is given below:-

It has been stated that for making payment towards price of the said unit, under subvention scheme, the complainant has obtained housing loan from PNB Housing Finance Limited/opposite party no.5 for which the parties entered into tripartite agreement dated 22.09.2015, Annexure C-7 and as such, the opposite parties no.1 to 4 were liable to pay Pre-EMI interest for a fixed period of 34 months i.e. upto delivery of possession of the unit in question. The said subvention period stood extended by the opposite parties no.1 to 4, on account of delay in delivery of possession of the unit. It has been further stated that due to delay in making payment of Pre-EMIs to the PNB Housing Finance Limited the CIBIL score of the complainant has been spoiled and also the actual period of payment of EMIs to be paid by the complainant has been increased from 168 installments to 218 months. Legal notice dated 06.05.2024, Annexure C-29 served upon the opposite parties no.1 to 4 in the matter also did not yield any results. Hence this complaint.

2. Though opposite parties no.1 to 4 appeared through their counsel, yet, written reply was filed only on behalf of opposite parties no.2 to 4, wherein, while admitting the factual matrix of the case with regard to sale of the unit in question to the complainant; execution of allotment letter/agreement etc. took various objections/pleas as under:-

i. the complainant being investor did not fall within the definition of consumer, as she and her husband owned multiple properties;

ii. that the subvention period was initially for 34 months which got extended on mutual understanding that she will not claim delayed compensation for the period of delay;

iii. that the complainant defaulted in making payment toward the unit in question and she had made payment from her own pocket to the tune of Rs.22,64,894.71 only and the remaining amount of Rs.47,02,935/- has been received from opposite party no.5 under subvention scheme

iv. that the opposite parties no.1 to 4 had paid an amount of Rs.38,66,339.45 towards Pre-EMI to opposite party no.5 and are paying the same till date;

v. that