Delay in delivering possession entitles the buyer to a full refund with interest.

1. Heard Mr. Aman Jha, Counsel for the complainants. No one appears for the opposite parties.

2. Above complaint has been filed for directing opposite party-1 to refund the entire amount of Rs.11691747/- with interest @18% per annum from the date of respective deposit till the date of refund, to pay compensation for mental agony and harassment, to pay Rs.150000/- as cost of litigation and any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts of the case.

3. The complainants stated that M/s Raheja Developers Ltd., (opposite party-1) was a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of development and construction of group housing project. Opposite party-1 has launched a project of group housing in the name of ‘Raheja Revanta’ at Sector-78, Gurugram in the year 2014. The complainants who were in need of a residence, booked an apartment on 21.05.2014 and deposited the booking amount. Opposite party-1 issued allotment letter dated 22.05.2014 allotting Unit no. C-342, Tower-C, which is known as Surya Towers to the complainants and executed an agreement to sell dated 20.06.2014. Vide clause 4.2 of this agreement, possession of Surya Towers had to be delivered within a period of 48 months from the date of execution of agreement to sell with grace period of six months. Opposite party, vide e-mail dated 05.05.2014, introduced a subvention-cum-buy-back scheme under which the home buyer was given liberty to opt for buy-back of the flat and claim for refund of entire amount with the profit of Rs.1400 per sq. ft. The complainants made timely payment of the instalments as per demand of opposite party-1 and made total payment of Rs.11691747/- upto September 2018. The period of 48 months expired on 22.06.2018 and grace period also expired in December 2018. Opposite party-1 however, neither completed the construction nor offered possession to the complainants. Opposite party-1 was not in position to handover possession in near future, as such, the complainants gave an e-mail dated 16.04.2017 giving his option for buy-back of the flat under the scheme dated 05.05.2014. Opposite party-1 however, in his reply dated 05.09.2017, denied the right of the complainants to opt for buy-back of the flat. The complainants then gave a legal notice dated 16.09.2017 to opposite party-1 to buy-back the flat within 15 days from service of the notice. However, opposite party-1, through e-mail dated 30.06.2018, gave two proposals for the complainants. However, the complainants, by their reply dated 26.09.2018, declined to accept the proposal of opposite party-1 and requested for refund of his entire amount with interest. Inspite of service of this e-mail, opposite party-1did not respond. Then this complaint was filed on 01.10.2018.

4. Opposite party-1 filed its written reply on 21.12.2018 and contested the matter. However, opposite party-1 did not dispute the booking of the flat by the complainants and deposits made by them as well as execution of agreement to sell in favour of the complainants. Opposite party has taken the plea that due to litigation with the third party, they could not proceed with the construction and complete it. Opposite party however, took technical plea relating to maintainability of this complaint. Inasmuch as, the complainants are not consumers, the complainants have an alternative remedy to go before the RERA Authority or to file a Civil Suit.

5. The complainants filed rejoinder reply on 11.03.2019. The complainants filed an affidavit of evidence and affidavit of admission/denial of documentary evidence of Col. Sameer Bhatia an affidavit in terms of Section 65-B of Evidence Act. Opposite party-1 filed an affidavit of evidence of Tarun Sharma. The complainants filed short synopsis