V.K. Jain ORDER
V.K. Jain, J. (Presiding Member)
1. The complainants booked a 3 BHK plus 3 T Plus servant quarter flat, along with a car park, in a Project namely DLF Garden City, which the opposite party was to develop at Chennai and Apartment No. C08072 was allotted to them vide allotment letter dated 24.10.2009. The parties then entered into an Apartment Buyers Agreement dated 26.3.2010, incorporating their respective contractual obligations. As per the agreed design of the flat, it was to have two external doors, including an external door to the servant quarter. According to the complainants, the opposite party first delayed the execution of the Buyers Agreement by not sending the same to them and then did not send signed copy of the agreement to them till mid-March, 2010, though they had signed and handed over the agreement to the opposite party sometime in late 2009. The total sale consideration of the flat was agreed at Rs. 58,58,960/-, which was payable in installments, as per the Schedule of Payment agreed between the parties. The said schedule was Annexure-3 to the Apartments Buyers Agreement. As per Clause 11(a) of the Buyers Agreement, the opposite party was to endeavor to complete construction of the apartment within a period of 27 months from the date of the said agreement, unless there was delay or failure due to force majeure conditions or due to failure of the allottee to pay in time. It was further stipulated in Clause 14 of the agreement that in the event of the builder being unable to give possession within the stipulated period, it would pay compensation @ Rs. 5/- per sq.ft. of the super area of the Apartment for each month of such delay. The adjustment of compensation was to be done only at the time of execution of the conveyance deed of the apartment and not earlier.
2. Vide Email dated 14.1.2012, the opposite party informed the complainants they were tentatively planning to deliver possession of the Tower-8 in which their flat was to be located in April, 2012. Vide letter dated 13.4.2012, the opposite party informed the complainants that they had started handing over possession of the apartments beginning with Tower-37.
3. Vide Email dated 24.8.2012, the opposite party sent to the complainant a letter dated 10.8.2012, stating therein that based upon feedback from the customers, they had redesigned the apartment thereby increasing the size of the servant room and converting the same to a study room with the door entry from inside the Apartment, as a result of which the saleable area had increased to 2064 sq. ft. The revised floor plan of the apartment allotted to the complainant was also sent to them. As per the said floor plan, there was no external entry to the area which was initially designed as servant room. The complainants however, protested against the said change and design by way of email dated 30.8.2012 and clearly stated that they wanted the apartment as per the floor plan attached to the Buyers Agreement and will not accept any change. According to the complainants, on 04.2.2013, one of them met the Vice President of the opposite party namely Mr. Surender, who assured to make arrangement to fix the external door to the servant room/study room as per the original design and deliver possession by April, 2013.
4. Vide letter dated 28.2.2014, the opposite party informed the complainants that their apartment was complete. They were asked to remit payment as per the statement of account enclosed therewith and also furnish certain document. This is also the case of the complainants that when one of them came to inspect the flat, several defects were noticed and it was found that no external door on the servant room/study room had been fixed. According to the complainants, one of them met two officials of the opposite party namely Mr. Satish Singampalli and Sandhya Baskar, who promised to do the needful, if it was structurally possible. The grievance of the complainants, however, was not addressed despite the aforesaid promises alleged to have been made by the officials of the opposite party. The complainants have already paid a sum of Rs. 70,68,481/- to the opposite party towards the cost of the flat which according to them ought........