Kavita Ahuja (S) v. Shipra Estate Ltd. & Jai Krishna Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. (S).

Factual and Procedural Background

The complainant, Smt. Kavita Ahuja, submitted three separate applications for the purchase of flats (Deodar 1301, Deodar 1302, and Deodar 1303) and paid booking amounts of Rs. 5,00,000 each. Letters of Allotment were issued for these flats with respective consideration amounts of Rs. 1,09,76,100, Rs. 1,13,93,825, and Rs. 1,25,66,150. The construction was to be completed within 22 months from commencement. The complainant paid Rs. 80,49,300, Rs. 83,55,600, and Rs. 92,15,230 against the three flats respectively.

The developer failed to complete construction within the stipulated time. On a site visit on 02.02.2008, the complainant observed that construction had barely started and showed no prospect of timely completion. She wrote to the developer seeking details about construction progress and possession dates, but received no response initially. Later, the developer sent a revised installment schedule dated 12.03.2009. The complainant replied, demanding a refund of the paid amounts with 21% interest per annum, as possession was not delivered. The developer offered a rebate of Rs. 5 per sq. ft. per month, which was rejected by the complainant.

The complainant filed a complaint before the Commission seeking refund with interest, compensation, and litigation costs. Initially, only the developer was named, but subsequently opposite parties No. 2 and 3 were impleaded following the developer's preliminary objection.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a refund of the amounts paid for the flats due to the developer's failure to complete construction within the stipulated time.
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to interest at the rate of 21% per annum on the amounts paid.
3. Whether compensation and costs of litigation should be awarded to the complainant.

Arguments of the Parties

Complainant's Arguments

• The amount paid by the complainant was incorrectly recorded in the earlier order dated 12.02.2015, and should be corrected to Rs. 80,49,300, Rs. 83,55,600, and Rs. 92,15,230 for the respective flats.
• The developer failed to complete construction within the agreed time frame and did not respond to queries regarding construction progress and possession dates.
• The complainant demanded refund of the paid amounts with interest at 21% per annum due to non-delivery of possession.
• The rebate offered by the developer was inadequate and unacceptable.
• Seeks refund, interest, compensation, and litigation costs.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the arguments made by the opposite parties.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court noted that the amounts paid by the complainant had been wrongly recorded in paragraph 2 of the earlier order dated 12.02.2015. Upon the complainant's submission, the court directed that paragraph 2 of the said order be corrected to reflect the accurate amounts paid against each flat. The court acknowledged the complainant's factual assertions regarding the delay in construction and the developer's failure to respond adequately. However, the court's order in this opinion is limited to correcting the record of amounts paid and does not elaborate further on other reliefs or the merits of the complaint.

Holding and Implications

The applications are disposed of as no other relief is pressed by the complainant. The direct effect is the correction of the recorded amounts paid by the complainant in the earlier order. The opinion does not establish any new precedent or elaborate on further reliefs beyond this correction.