ORDER

06.     Upon notice, the Opposite Party Developer has filed its Written Version denying the contents of the Complaint and inter-alia raising the preliminary issues that; the Complaint filed by the Complainants is not maintainable under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act as there is lack of community and common interest and two initial complainants have already been offered possession in the year 2017; (ii) the Opposite Party Developer is not engaged in the business of re-sale of Units and have not engaged any Broker for the same purpose as alleged by the Complainants and it has only given approval for transfer of ownership rights subject to payment of transfer charges; some of the Complainants have purchased the Apartment in re-sale;

07.     On merits, it is contended that (i) the Complainants have concealed the material facts and they were provided absolute opportunity to inspect the site Plans, Location Plan, Building Floor Plan, Ownership Record and other documents relating to the Title and no untrue picture was portrayed to the buyers either before or after submitting of the Application Form for purchase of the respective Apartment; (ii) in the Application Form and in the Clause 8,9,10,11,12 and 13 of the Agreement, it is specifically mentioned that the Total Unit Cost Price is inclusive of Basic Sale Price and the Preference Location Charges but exclusive of External Development Charges (EDC), Internal Development Charges (IDC), Car Parking, Club  Membership Fee, External Electrification, Fire Fighting Charges, Power Back Up Charges, Interest Free Maintenance Deposit, Maintenance Charges, Stamp Duty, Registration Charges, Service Tax and any other Government levies and other allied charges payable as per the terms and conditions of Application and Apartment/Buyer’s Agreement/Allotment Letter; (iii) an exclusive amount of ₹3,00,000/- for Covered Car Parking Space and ₹75,000/- for Club Charges was fixed; (iv) delay, if any,  in completion of the Project has occasioned solely due to force majeure circumstances such as ban on ground-water extraction imposed by the High Court vide Order dated 16.07.2012, 31.07.2012 and 21.08.2012 passed in CWP No. 20032/2008, titled Sunil Singh vs. MOEF & Ors, ban on mining of sand in Haryana and Rajasthan imposed by National Green Tribunal, Jaat Agitation in Gurgaon, Order of NGT to stop construction in April, 2015 and November, 2016 due to emission of dust, demonetization, etc and all of which cumulatively resulted in a delay of about 18 months in the execution of work at site; (v) there was no inefficiency or inaction on the part of the Opposite Party Developer; (vi) the delay in completion of the Project was duly communicated to the Complainants by the Opposite Party  Developer vide Letter dated 08.02.2017; (vii) Complainants have deliberately suppressed factual position and status of the Project and the construction work is going on in full swing; (viii) possession of the respective Apartments to the Complainants would be handed over within short span of time; (ix) the construction of the Project has been done by the Opposite Party Developer as per the Sanctioned Plan and there is no deviation from the same, (x) as per Clause 30 of the Agreement, the Buyers or the Flat Allottees are not entitled for any compensation if the delay in offering the possession of the allotted Apartment to them is due to force majeure circumstances or the reasons beyond the control of the Developer; (xi) the possession of the booked Apartments was to be delivered to the Complainant by the Developer latest by December 2015 in terms of the Agreement and as such they are liable to bear the escalation of the service tax as the same were revised only in the year 2015; and (xii) the complaint is pre-mature and deserves to be dismissed. The booking, allotment of Apartment and consideration paid by the Complainants, have not been disputed by the Developer.

08.     We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties a