IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                             Date of Decision: 21.07.2017

Complaint Case No. 405/2011

In the matter of:

1. Sh. Prafull Vinod

S/o Ram Vinod Shahi

R/o Shahi Apartment

GobarShahi Chowk

Muzaffarpur, Bihar-842001

2. Smt. Savita Sharma

W/s Prafull Vinod

R/o C/o B K Sharma

New Krishna Bhawan Club Road

Mittaanpura, Muzaffarpur

Bihar-842001                                             ........Complainants

Versus

            Parsvnath Developers Ltd.

(Through its Managing Director)

Regd. Office-6^th Floor

Arunachal Building

19, Barakhamba Road

New Delhi-110001                                            ..........Opposite Party

CORAM

N P KAUSHIK                         -                  Member (Judicial)

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                   Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                  Yes

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

JUDGMENT

1.         Complainant-1 Sh. Prafull Vinod and Complainant no. 2 Smt. Savita Sharma who happened to be the husband and wife respectively admittedly booked a flat in one of the projects of M/s Parsvnath Developers Ltd. (in short the OP) named as Parsvnath Palacia in Greater Noida (UP). The flat measured 1710 sq. ft.  Complainants paid an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- as the booking amount vide cheque dated 27.06.2008. The flat buyers’ agreement dated 11.10.2008 was entered into between the parties. The total sale consideration of the flat was Rs. 56,43,000/-. Complainant had admittedly paid an amount of Rs. 21,91,300/-. Physical possession of the flat was to be given within a period of thirty six months as per clause 10(a) of the agreement subject to force majeure, restrictions from courts/authority.
2.         Contention of the complainant is that they made repeated telephonic enquiries from the OP in relation to the status of the project. They made several personal visits as well. E-mails dated 10.04.2011, 11.04.2011, 12.04.2011, 23.04.2011, 09.06.2011, 10.06.2011, 06.07.2011 and 26.07.2011 were also sent. OP had been avoiding reply and kept on delaying the matter on one or the other pretext. Vide its letter dated 09.07.2010, OP admitted having not completed the project on time. Vide same letter, OP stated that due to slow down in the real estate section and the global economic meltdown he could not complete the construction of the project. OP referred to clause 10(c) of the flat buyers’ agreement vide which the buyer was to be compensated for delay by way of penalty. OP further promised to complete the construction by June 2012. Submission of the complainant is that he contacted the OP in November 2011 enquiring the status of his flat. OP did not give any satisfactory reply. Complainant filed the present complaint seeking refund of the entire money along with interest @ 24% p.a. Compensation to the tune of Rs. 42,750/- @ Rs. 5/- per sq. ft. has also been prayed for. Besides this, damages to the tune of Rs. 8,00,000/- have also been claimed.
3.         Sole defence raised by the OP is that as per clause 10(c) of the flat buyers’ agreement the complainants are entitled to compensation @ Rs. 5/- per sq. ft. of the super area per month for the period of delay. Contention of the OP is that the complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement. OP also contended that due to global recession he failed to complete the project.
4.         After completion of the pleadings parties placed on record their affidavits towards evidence. Written arguments too have been filed.
5.         I have heard at length the arguments addressed by the counsel for the complainant Sh. Saurabh Jain Advocate and Counsel for the OP Sh. T P Chauhan Advocate.
6.         Clause 10(c) of the flat buyers agreement on which the OP has placed reliance is reproduced below:
7.  

In case of