1. The present Consumer Complaint (CC) has been filed by the Complainants against the opposite party as detailed above, inter aila praying for directions to the OP:-

2. Notice was issued to OP on 05.06.2018, giving them 30 days’ time to file written statement. Written statement was filed by OP on 18.07.2018.

3. It is averred in the Complaint that: -

4. The OP in their written statement/reply stated that:-

5. Complainants in their rejoinder denied the allegations of OP and also cited various Hon’ble Supreme court judgements.

6. Evidence by way of an Affidavit was filed by the complainants and the Opposite Party broadly on the lines of averments made in the complaint Written Synopsis were filed by the Complainants

7. Heard counsels of both sides. The details of the flat allotted to the Complainant/other relevant details of the case are given in the Table below:-

8. The contention of the OP that the Complaint is barred by limitation is also not accepted. The OP has failed to deliver the possession of the unit to the complainants till date and therefore, the cause of action is continuing. The contention that complainants had not booked the said unit for their personal consumption is also rejected as no such evidence has been adduced by the OP in this regard. The plea of OP that delay was due to force majeure and beyond their control circumstances is not valid as even after a gap of more than five years from the committed date given in the ABA, possession of flat has not been given. There is no documentary evidence to support the contention of the Opposite Party that the reasons pleaded by them, can be construed as ‘Force Majeure. The contention of the OP that the parties are bound by the agreement and that delay compensation is payable as per agreement terms is also not acceptable. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raglivan II (2019) CPJ 34 (SC) decided on 02.04.2019 held that “a term of a contract will not be final and binding if it is shown that the flat purchasers had no option to sign on the dotted line, on a contract framed by the builder ......... the incorporation of one sided clause in an agreement constitute an unfair trade practice as per Section 2 (r) of the Consumer Protection Act , 1986 since it adopts unfair methods or practices for the purpose of selling flats by the builder ........., the appellant-builder cannot seek to bind the respondent with such one sided contractual terms.”

9. The main grievances/contentions of the complainants are (i) delay in possession (ii) increase in super area (iii) deviations/modifications in original structural design (iv) excess charge of EDCs, which was later on refunded in part, and without interest (v) wrongful demand/charge of HVAT (vi) additional financial burden on account of increased taxes due to delay in possession (vii) extra/incorrect charge towards electric substation and car parking (viii) unjustified increased registration/legal charges for registry of the unit (ix) non-provision of an exclusive club house for ‘Presidia’ project residents and demand of additional price towards club membership.

10. OP has stated that initially OP paid EDC @Rs.104.04 lakhs per acre to State Government, these charges were later on enhanced to Rs.206.52 lakh per acre, and subsequently reduced to Rs.176.28 lakh per acre. OP charged EDC@ Rs.242.62 per sq.ft. and IDC @Rs.43.43 per sq.ft and some amounts were refunded later on. No VAT has been charged from complainants, only GST has been charged. All statutory taxes prevailing at the time of execution of conveyance deed have to be paid by the compl