MANU/CF/0348/2019

IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI

Consumer Case No. 2604 of 2017

Decided On: 21.05.2019

Appellants: Ashok Kumar Taneja Vs. Respondent: Orris Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
R.K. Agrawal, J. (President) and M. Shreesha

ORDER

M. Shreesha, Member

1. This Complaint has been filed under Section 21 (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "the Act") against M/s. Orris Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Developer"), seeking the following reliefs:

1. "Pay an amount of Rs. 2,11,22,943/- (Rupees Two Crore Eleven lacs twenty two thousand nine hundred forty three only) along with pendente-lite and future interest till the actual realization;

2. Pay an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- as a compensation towards the mental pain, agony and sufferings;

3. Pay an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards the cost of litigation;

4. Pass such any other or further orders as this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the complainant and against the Opposite Party, in the interest of justice."

2. The brief facts as set out in the Complaint are that the Complainant, lured by the rosy representation of the officials of the Developer and the promise of possession within three years from the date of booking, booked an Apartment in the project 'Aster Court Premier' on 14.05.2012 by paying a booking amount of 4,50,000/- by cheque. On 18.05.2012, an Allotment Letter was issued by the Developer, wherein the Complainant was allotted Unit No. 601, 6th Floor, Tower-4B, in the project 'Aster Court Premier' in Sector -85, Gurgaon with a super area of 2410 sq. ft. The Buyer's Agreement was executed between the parties on 04.06.2012. It is stated that the Complainant has paid an amount of 1,15,33,140/-, from May 2012 to December 2016, out of the total sale consideration of 1,21,56,634/-, which construes 95% of the total sale consideration.

3. It is pleaded that despite having paid 95% of the total sale consideration on time, and making several requests, the Developer has failed to deliver the possession to the Complainant till the date of filing of the present Complaint. It is averred that the project is far from completion. It is pleaded that the Developer charges interest @ 18% p.a. from the allottees in case of default in payment of amounts due as can be seen from the demand letter dated 10.12.2016.

4. It is averred that the Developer has arbitrarily changed the date of handing over of possession to within three years from the date of booking to the date of Agreement, which was executed belatedly and he had no other option to execute the Agreement as he had paid a substantial amount of 20,50,000/-. It is pleaded that the Complainant was made to run from pillar to post by the Developer even when he sought information about the progress of the work, but there was no response. The Complainant tried to meet the Directors of the Developer Company but was not allowed to do so. Thereafter, the Complainant sought for refund of the money paid with interest as the Developer failed to deliver the possession within the stipulated time but there was no response. Vexed with the attitude of the Developer, the Complainant approached this Commission seeking the aforenoted reliefs.

5. The Complaint was contested by the Developer on the following grounds:-

Preliminary objections raised by the Developers is that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the instant Complaint as Clause 50 of the Agreement dated 05.06.2012 provides that any dispute between the parties shall be adjudicated under the provision of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; that the Complainant is not a Consumer as he books and sells properties for earning profit; that the Developer is not providing any service, thus there is no relationship of service provider and consumer between the Developer and the Complainant; that the relationship between the parties is of a buyer and seller; that the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court restricted the use of ground water for construction activities and there was acute shortage of water for construction activities which led to delay in the construction of the project; that the Complainant has signed the Agreement out of his free wil........