A developer cannot indefinitely claim force majeure for delays beyond the government-mandated extension period, and failure to deliver possession within a reasonable timeframe constitutes a deficiency in service warranting compensation at 9% per annum interest on the deposited amount.

PER MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

This complaint has been filed by the complainant seeking possession of the unit purchased by him alongwith compensation for the period of delay etc., as he is aggrieved of delay and latches; deficiency in providing service, negligence and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. It has been alleged by the complainant that despite the fact that he has made payment of substantial sale consideration of ₹86,33,362 i.e. (₹77,08,359.85 + ₹9,25,003.15 as ST/GST) for the period from 15.09.2018 to 24.04.2019, against total sale consideration of ₹83,26,729.00 (as per statement, Annexure C-6). The complainant also availed loan facility of ₹20,00,000/- from State Bank of India, for which a Tripartite Agreement dated 15.10.2018, Annexure C-3, was executed between the complainant, builder and the bank. An agreement for sale, dated 21.12.2018, Annexure C-5 was also executed between the parties as per Clause 7.1 whereof, the possession of the unit was to be handed over by 31.07.2021, yet the opposite party has not offered legal and valid possession of the unit for want of development and construction at the project site and the requisite occupation and completion certificate. Schedule D annexed with the agreement for sale governed the payment plan of the unit in question. Details with regard to the project; unit purchased by the complainant; payments made by them etc. are given below:-

2] Alleging aforesaid acts as deficiency in rendering service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, the complainant has filed the instant complaint seeking directions to the opposite party to deliver possession of the unit in question after obtaining completion and occupancy certificate from the competent authority on receipt of legally due amount from the complainant; execute and get registered the sale deed; pay compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the deposited amount for the period of delay starting from 31.07.2021 till handing over of the possession; refund ₹9,25,003/- charged as ST/GST alongwith interest @12% per annum; pay compensation of ₹1,00,000/- for deficiency in service, mental torture, harassment and unfair trade practice and also pay ₹1,00,000/- as litigation expenses.

Reply of the opposite party:-

3] The opposite party, in its written reply, while admitting factual matrix of the case with regard to sale of the unit in question, execution of tripartite agreement & agreement for sale; payments made by the complainant took various objections/pleas as under:-

i. this Commission lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint as neither the subject project nor the opposite party fall within its territorial jurisdiction;

ii. this Commission also lacks pecuniary jurisdiction;

iii. the complaint is barred by limitation under the provisions of Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019;

iv. that the complainant himself sought a down payment discount and a discount of ₹2,57,307/- was duly granted and the agreement was consequently executed at the discounted price;

v. that the possession of the unit in question, which was to be delivered on 31.07.2021, got delayed due to disruptions caused by Cov