ORDER

PER JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL

This Complaint has been filed under Section 21 (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short “the Act”) against M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the Opposite Party”), seeking the following reliefs:

2.       The brief facts as stated in the Complaint are that the Complainant lured by the advertisements, representations and assurance of timely delivery of possession made by the Opposite Party, the Complainant on 14.01.2012, for residential purpose, booked an Apartment in the project, namely, ‘Palm Gardens’ being developed by the Opposite Party at Sector-83, Gurgaon, Haryana by paying a booking amount of ₹7,50,000/- for a total sale consideration of ₹1,09,15,907/-. The Opposite Party issued an Allotment Letter dated 25.01.2012 for unit bearing No. PGN-01-12A06 for super area of approximate 1900 sq. ft.  The Builder Buyer Agreement was executed between the Parties on 16.02.2012. As per Clause 10 (a) of the Agreement, the possession of the Apartment was to be delivered within 36 months from the date of start of construction with a grace period of three months. It is averred that the possession of the Apartment was to be handed over in September, 2015 including the grace period of 3 months, as the construction was started in June, 2012. The Complainant has opted for a construction linked payment plant. It is stated that the Complainant have diligently followed the payment plan and paid all the installments as and when demanded by the Opposite Party totaling to ₹1,05,13,907/-.

3.       It is averred that the Opposite Party made demands for the installments without reaching the concerned milestone. It is further averred that the Opposite Party has changed the layout plan of the project without informing the Complainant/ Buyers in the year, 2015, when the possession of the Apartment was to be handed over. It is submitted that the Opposite Party failed to complete the construction of the project within the stipulated period and in the year 2016, unilaterally, extended the date of completion of the project to 2018-2019. It is further submitted that the Opposite Party has illegally charged the Complainant under various heads like parking charges, PLC, IFMS, EDC, IDC etc.  It is alleged the Opposite Party without having building plans approved by concerned authorities started booking of the Apartments and has collected substantial amounts from the buyers, which is contrary to the law. 

4.       It is pleaded that the Opposite Party, despite having collected a substantial amount of ₹1,05,13,907/-, which is almost 96% of the total sale consideration has failed to deliver the possession of the Apartment, till the date of filing of the present Complaint. It is alleged that the Opposite Party miserably failed to comply with its contractual obligations of handing over possession of the subject Apartment in “Palm Gardens”, and even after several years, has not completed the construction work, which clearly is an act of “deficiency in service” on the part of the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party  has also unilaterally extending the date for completion of the project, which is an unfair trade practice on its part.  The Complainant has therefore approached this Commission seeking the aforenoted reliefs.  

5.       The Complaint was contested by the Opposite Party by filing the Written Statement, admitting to the booking and allotment of the Apartment, receipt of amount, execution of Agreement and its clauses. The Preliminary objection raised by the Opposite Party is that the Complainant is not a Consumer and just an investor in the project as the Complainant already has a permanent residence in Rohini, Delhi and it is only for investment purpose that he had booked the unit for financial gain by re-selling the same.  It is stated that for any delay in handing over of possession, beyond the period mentioned in the Agreement, the Opposite Party is only liable to pay @ ₹7.5 per sq. ft. per month