ORDER

1.      Heard Mr. Kapil Kher, Advocate, for the complainant and Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Siddharth Banthia, Advocate, for the opposite party.

2.      Rishab Jain has filed above complaint, for directing the opposite party to (i) refund Rs.8654483/-, with interest @18% per annum from the date of respective deposit till the date of refund; (ii) pay Rs.500000/-, as compensation for mental agony and harassment; (iii) pay Rs.200000/-, as litigation costs; and (iv) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts of the case.

3.      The complainant stated that Raheja Developers Limited (the opposite party) was a company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of development and construction of group housing project. The opposite party launched a group housing project, in the name of “Raheja Revanta” at Sector-78, Gurgaon, in the year, 2011 and made wide publicity of its amenities and facilities. Believing upon the representations of the opposite party, the complainant booked an independent floor and deposited booking amount of Rs.1113345/- on 18.11.2011. The opposite party allotted Unit No.IF40-02 “Tapas”, admeasuring 2372.45 sq.ft. total consideration of Rs.10853959/- vide Allotment Letter on 14.06.2012 and executed Agreement to Sell on 14.06.2012, in favour of the complainant. Annexure-A of the agreement contained payment plan as “construction link payment plan”. Article-4.2 of the agreement provides 36 months period from the date of execution of the agreement with grace period of six months for delivery of possession. The opposite party, vide an addendum agreement dated 28.04.2014, allotted Unit No.IF18-02. As per demand, the complainant deposited Rs.8654483/- till December, 2015. The opposite party was raising demand of the instalments without attaining the stage of construction for which demand used to be raised. The period of 36 months expired on 14.06.2015 and grace period of six months expired on 14.09.2015. The complainant vide email dated 16.07.2018, requested for handing over possession but the opposite party did not respond. The complainant gave a legal notice dated 01.04.2019, calling upon the opposite party to handover possession within one month. In spite of service of legal notice, the opposite party did not respond. Then this complaint was filed on 20.06.2019, alleging deficiency in service.

4.      The opposite party filed its written reply on 28.08.2019, in which, booking of the floor, allotment of the floor, execution of agreement and the deposits made by the complainant, have not been disputed. The opposite party stated that the construction was delayed for force majeure reasons and liable to be condoned under clause-4.4 of the agreement. Several home buyers of the project, including the complainant committed default in payment of instalment, which created paucity of the fund. The complainant always delayed payment of the instalment and around an amount of interest of Rs.4.5 lacs for delayed payment was waived by the opposite party. High Tension Electricity line was passing through middle of the project land. DHVBNL took unreasonable time in making it underground. The contractor engaged by the opposite party created dispute. Acquisition of the land of Dwarka Expressway got entangled into litigation. Although 10 years expired but HUDA failed to provide basic infrastructure facilities such as road, sewer line, water line and electricity supply although EDC & IDC etc. have been deposited by the opposite party and several other builders of the locality. The opposite party, vide letter dated 26.02.2017, informed all the buyers about tentative date for completion of the project. Slow pace of construction was due to non-availability of basic infrastructure. The construction of the project is at advance stage. The opposite party is making all efforts to complete the construction at the earliest. Article 4.2 provides for delay compensation and the