ORDER

1.      Heard Ms. Padmapriya, Advocate, for the complainant and Mr. Siddharth Banthia, Advocate, for the opposite party.

2.      Ashish Vohra has filed above complaint, for directing the opposite party to (i) handover possession of the unit allotted to him in the project “Raheja Revanta” and pay delay compensation in the form of interest @18% per annum on his deposit, from due date of possession till the delivery of possession; (ii) pay Rs.1000000/-, as compensation for deficiency in service, 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. At the time of argument, the counsel for the complainant prayed for refund of entire amount deposited by the complainant with interest.

3.      The complainant stated that M/s. 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.1601033/- on 11.02.2012 and Rs.2401549/- on 14.04.2012. The opposite party issued Allotment Letter on 23.05.2012 allotting Apartment No.IF1-04 “Tapas”, admeasuring 2548.70 sq.ft. and executed Agreement to Sell on 23.05.2012, in favour of the complainant, in which, total consideration of Rs.18838955/- has been mentioned. 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. As per demand, the complainant deposited Rs.14402973/- 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 22.05.2015 and grace period of six months expired on 22.11.2015. The complainant gave a legal notice dated 02.02.2016, calling upon the opposite party to handover possession within one month. In spite of service of legal notice, the opposite party did not respond. The complainant filed CC/756/2016 before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, which dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 19.08.2016 with liberty to file the complainant before appropriate forum. Then this complaint was filed on 19.04.2017, alleging deficiency in service.        

4.      The opposite party filed its written reply on 19.07.2017, 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