opposite party. The sale consideration for the aforesaid flat was agreed at Rs.10644504/-. The said allotment was transferred to the complainants - Parminder Sandhu and his wife Arvinder Sandhu on 20.9.2011 and the said transfer was duly approved by the opposite party which has already received a sum of Rs.9613596/- towards the cost of the flat. The total payment made by the complainants inclusive of the transfer charges amounts to Rs.10405743/- Since possession has not been offered to them, they are before this Commission seeking possession of the allotted flat along with compensation, etc.

CC/508/2015(seeking possession + compensation)

The complainant, namely, Sonali Kumar and her husband Saurabh Agarwal booked a residential flat No.902 with the opposite party in the above-referred project for a total consideration of Rs.9274650/- and paid a sum of Rs.8825493/- to the opposite party. A Buyers Agreement between the parties was executed on 1.3.2007. The possession to them was to be delivered by 1.3.2010. Since possession of the allotted flat has not been offered to them, the complainant is before this Commission seeking possession of the said flat along with compensation for the period the possession is delayed.

CC/1035/2015 (seeking possession + compensation)

One Davinder Gupta booked a residential apartment No.1101 with the opposite party in the above-referred project for a total consideration of Rs.9908440/- and a Buyers Agreement was executed with him on 9.6.2007. The possession was to be delivered to him by 9.6.2010. The said allotment was purchased by the complainant - Rahul Pande Rao on 22.9.2007 and the said transfer was duly approved by the opposite party. Since the opposite party has failed to offer possession of the allotted flat to them, they are also before this Commission seeking possession of the allotted flat along with compensation, etc.

CC/1058/2015 (seeking possession + compensation)

The complainant, Wg. Cdr. Anil Tharani and his wife Deepa Saini Tharani booked a residential flat No.302 with the opposite party in the above-referred project for a total consideration of Rs.8930338/- dated 10.8.2006 and a Buyers Agreement was executed between him and the opposite party. The possession was to be delivered to him by 10.8.2009. Since the opposite party has failed to offer possession of the allotted flat to them, they are before this Commission seeking possession of the allotted flat along with compensation, etc.

CC/1093/2015 (seeking possession + compensation)

The complainant, Ajay Kumar Kapoor and his wife Manju Mehta booked a residential flat No.1202 with the opposite party in the above-referred project for a total consideration of Rs.9311083/- and a Buyers Agreement between them and the opposite party was executed on 4.8.2007. The possession was to be delivered by 4.8.2010. Since the opposite party has failed to offer possession of the allotted flat to them, the complainant is before this Commission seeking possession of the allotted flat along with compensation for the delay in handing over

2

the possession.

CC/1094/2015 (seeking possession + compensation)

The complainant, namely, Rajat Sharma along with his wife Smt. Monica Sharma booked a residential flat No.301 with the opposite party in the above-referred project for a total consideration of Rs.9274650/- and a Buyers Agreement between them and the opposite party was executed on 2.2.2007. The possession was to be delivered to them by 2.2.2010. Since the opposite party has failed to offer possession of the allotted flat to them, the complainant is before this Commission seeking possession of the allotted flat along with compensation for the delay in offering possession of the flat.

CC/1095/2015 (seeking possession + compensation)

The complainants, namely, Harminder Benipal and Ravdeep Benipal booked a residential flat No 1802 with the opposite party in the above-referred project for a total consideration of Rs.17370322/- and a Buyers Agreement with them was executed on 30.8.2006. The possession to them was to be delivered by 30.8.2009. Since the opposite party has failed to offer possession of the allotted flat to them, they are before this Commission seeking possession of the allotted flat along with compensation, etc.

CC/537/2016 (seeking possession + compensation)

The complainant, namely, Sandeep Kumar and his wife Shanu Saksena booked a residential flat No.0002 with the opposite party in the above-referred project for a total consideration of Rs.16192753/- and a Buyers Agreement between them and the opposite party was executed on 21.6.2010. The possession was to be delivered to them by 30.6.2011. Since the opposite party has failed to deliver possession of the allotted flat to them, the complainant is before this Commission seeking possession of the allotted flat along with compensation, etc.

CC/538/2016 (seeking possession + compensation)

The complainant, namely, Arvind Panwar and his wife Monika Panwar booked a residential flat No.1501 with the opposite party in the above-referred project for a total consideration of Rs.9050284/- and a Buyers Agreement between them and the opposite party was executed on 21.8.2006. The possession was to be delivered to them by 21.8.2009. Since the opposite party has failed to offer possession of the allotted flat to them, the complainant is before this Commission seeking possession of the allotted flat along with compensation for the delay in handing over the possession.

2. The complaints have been resisted by the opposite party on the grounds which this Commission has repeatedly rejected in a number of consumer complaints. The first objection taken by the opposite party is that in some of the cases the agreed sale consideration was less than Rs.1 crore and, therefore, this Commission lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain those complaints. It has been further alleged that a number of complainants had purchased the flat at

3

a later date knowing fully well that the opposite party will not be able to deliver possession of the said flat, by the date stipulated in the Buyers Agreement and, therefore, it is evident that the flat was purchased by them for commercial purpose. As regards the delay in offering possession of the flats, the opposite party has alleged that (i) the project faced various road blocks and hindrances including approval from different authorities (ii) there was slow down in the real estate, affecting the demand and supply of the flats (iii) there was shortage of labour in NCR region on account of requirement of labour in the projects relating to Commonwealth Games (iv) there was shortage of labour in the market due to implementation of social schemes such as National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme and Jawarhar Lal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission which diverted the labour to the employment guaranteed by the Government under the said schemes. It is also alleged that there was shortage of ground water and Punjab and Haryana High Court had stopped the usage of ground water for construction purposes. This is also claimed that there was shortage of bricks in the market due to restrictions placed by Ministry of Environment and Forests, Govt. of India, which had barred the excavation of top soil for the manufacture of bricks and had stopped the said manufacturing within a radius of 15 km from coal and lignite based thermal power plants without mixing at least 25% of ash with soil. It is also alleged that there was shortage of sand in the market since mining operations in the Aravali Hill were stopped due to a ruling by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is also alleged that it took a long time for the concerned authorities to give environmental clearance to the project.

3. Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act confers jurisdiction upon this Commission to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation if any claimed exceeds Rs.1 crore. Only in CC No.340 of 2015, the agreed sale consideration was less than Rs.1 crore. If the amount of compensation claimed by the said complainants is added to the agreed sale consideration, the aggregate amount comes to more than Rs.1 crore. Therefore, all the complaints are within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.

4. The grounds taken by the opposite party to justify the delay in offering possession of the flats to the allottees are almost identical to the grounds which it had taken in C.C. No.427 of 2014 - Satish Kumar Pandey & Anr. Vs. Unitech Ltd., and connected matters decided by this Commission on 8^thJune, 2015. Rejecting these grounds, this Commission interalia held as under:

"7. It would thus be seen that but for the exceptional circumstances mentioned in Clause 4.a.ii, the opposite party was required to hand over the possession of the apartment to the flat buyers within 36 months from the date of signing the agreement with them. The exceptional circumstances which could justify delay in hand over the possession of the apartments were:-

(a) Lock-out

(b) Strike

(c) Slow-down

(d) Civil Commotion

4

(e) War, enemy action, terrorist action, earthquake or act of God and

(f) any reason or circumstance beyond the control of the developer. The delay in handing over the possession of the apartments could also be justified if there was to be a new legislation, regulation or order suspending, stopping or delaying the construction of the complex and the apartments.

8. Neither any new legislation was enacted nor an existing rule, regulation or order was amended stopping suspending or delaying the construction of the complex in which apartments were agreed to be sold to the complainants. There is no allegation of any lock-out or strike by the labour at the site of the project. There is no allegation of any slow-down having been resorted to by the labourers of the opposite party or the contractors engaged by it at the site of the project. There was no civil commotion, war, enemy action, terrorist action, earthquake or any act of God which could have delayed the completion of the project within the time stipulated in the Buyers Agreement. It was contended by the counsel for the OP that the expression 'slow down' would include economic slow-down or recession in the Real Estate sector. I, however, find no merit in this contention. The word 'slow down' having been used alongwith the words lock-out and strike, I has to be read ejusdem generis with the words lock-out and strike and therefore, can mean only a slow down if resorted by the labourers engaged in construction of the project.

9. As regards, alleged shortage of labour, I find that no material has been placed on record by the OP that despite trying, it could not be get labourers to complete the construction of the project within the time stipulated in the Buyers Agreement. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the complainants that ordinarily big builders such as the OP in these cases, are contracting/sub-contracting the construction work to the contractors engaged by them, instead of employing their own labourers on a regular basis, the purpose being to ensure that they are not saddled with the wage bill of those regular labourers, in case the opposite party does not have adequate work for them. There is no evidence of the OP having been invited tenders for appointment of contractors / sub-contractors for executing the work at the site of those projects and no contractor/ sub-contractor having come forward to execute the project on the ground that adequate labour was not available in the market. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that the opposite party could not have arranged adequate labour, either directly or through contractors/sub-contractors, for timely completion of the project. As regards the alleged shortage of water, bricks and sand in the market, I find that there is no evidence filed by the OP, to prove that it was unable to procure water, sand and brick in adequate quantity. This is also their case that the notification of the Government, being relied upon by the opposite party, is an old notification, which was in force even at the time the opposite party promised possession in 36 months. There is no evidence of the opposite party having invited tenders for supply of bricks and water and there being no response to such tenders. In fact, if the work is to be executed through

5

contractors/sub-contractors, the material such as bricks, sand and even water will be arranged by the contractor/sub-contractor and not by the opposite party. As noted earlier, there is no evidence of the opposite party having invited tenders after awarding the work of project in question to the contractors/sub-contractors and there being no response to such tenders. Therefore, I find no merit in the plea that the completion of the project was delayed due to non-availability of water, sand and bricks in adequate quantity. As regards common-wealth games projects work, on those projects was complete before the games were held in October 2010. The project in question on the other hand was required to be completed in phases, beginning end of 2012, i.e., more than 2 years after the aforesaid games were concluded. In any case, it has been more than 4 ½ years since common-wealth games were held and even today the project in question is far from complete. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention that the completion of the project was delayed on account of commonwealth games. Consequently, there is no escape from the conclusion that the delay in construction of the apartments cannot be attributed to any of the reasons mentioned in clause 4.a.ii of the Buyers Agreement."

5. The plea that in case of delay, the opposite party is bound to pay only the agreed compensation has repeatedly been rejected by this Commission in a number of cases including Satish Kumar Pandey (supra) and CC No.347 of 2014 - Swarn Talwar & Ors. Vs. Unitech Ltd. decided on 14.8.2015. The following was the view taken by this Commission in this regard:-

It can hardly be disputed that a term of this nature is wholly one sided, unfair and unreasonable. The builder charges compound interest @ 18% per annum in the event of the delay on the part of the buyer in making payment to him but seeks to pay less than 3% per annum of the capital investment, in case he does not honour his part of the contract by defaulting in giving timely possession of the flat to the buyer. Such a term in the Buyer's Agreement also encourages the builder to divert the funds collected by him for one project, to another project being undertaken by him. He thus, is able to finance a new project at the cost of the buyers of the existing project and that too at a very low cost of finance. If the builder is to take loan from Banks or Financial Institutions, it will have to pay the interest which the Banks and Financial Institutions charge on term loan or cash credit facilities etc. The interest being charged by the Banks and Financial Institutions for financing projects of the builders is many times more than the nominal compensation which the builder would pay to the flat buyers in the form of flat compensation.

If the builder is made to pay only the paltry compensation stipulated in the Buyers Agreement, this may result in a situation where the completion of the flats is unjustifiably delayed by the builder for an indefinite time since he know that the compensation he will have to pay to the flat buyer, on account of the delay in offering possession to him would only be a fraction of the cost of the borrowing in the market. Such a view may also encourage the builder to divert funds collected from the flat buyers in one project to the other projects promoted by him or even for his own purposes. This Commission, therefore, must necessarily eschew from taking such a view.

6

6. An appeal preferred by the opposite party against the decision of this Commission in Swarn Talwar & Ors. being Civil Appeal D.No.35562/2015 was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 11.12.2015 which reads as under:-

"We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. We do not see any cogent reason to entertain the appeal. The judgement impugned does not warrant any interference.

The Civil Appeal is dismissed."

7. As regards the alleged delay in obtaining environmental clearances there is no material on record to show when the opposite party applied for such clearances, where they submitted all the requisite documents etc. while applying for such clearances and how much was the time taken by the concerned authorities in granting the said clearances. In the absence of such particulars, it would be difficult for us to accept that development of the project was delayed on account of any notification imposing restrictions on new projects. In any case, the opposite party has failed to produce before us any notification imposing restriction or prohibition on development of the project in which the flats were to be constructed for the complainants.

8. Vide order dated 02.5.2016, this Commission disposed of a number of Consumer Complaints namely Cap. Gurtaj Singh Sahni Vs. Unitech Limited, Consumer Complaint No.603 of 2014 and connected matter, where the opposite party had delayed the delivery of the possession in the project namely Espace Premier, Unitech Nirvana Country-2, Gurgaon, Haryana, in the same Colony Nirvana Country II in Sector 71 and 72 of Gurgaon. Those complaints were resisted on almost identical grounds. On the issue of Punjab & Haryana High Court banning the use of groundwater in construction activities, this Commission inter-alia observed and held as under:

As far as the prohibition on use of underground water in construction is concerned, the learned counsel for the complainant has drawn my attention to the order dated 21.08.2012 passed by a Divisional Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 20032 of 2008 wherein the High Court noted that the public notice issued under Section-5(3) of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 was published in the newspaper on 26.12.2000. It further shows that the said notice had imposed a complete ban upon the use of underground water in the construction without prior approval of the competent authority. It was noted by the High Court that despite publication of the aforesaid notice, the builders continued to use underground water for construction purposes. If there was a complete ban on use of underground water for construction and the said prohibition was notified on 26.12.2000, the opposite party must have taken into account, the impact of the said prohibition while entering into Buyers Agreements with the complainants. Therefore, it is not open to the opposite party to rely upon the said prohibition in order to justify the delay in construction of the villas sold to the complainants. The opposite party knew at the time of entering into agreements with the complainants that it will not be able to use underground water for construction of the villas and therefore, will have to make alternative arrangements from authorized sources for making the water available for the said construction. Therefore, the aforesaid prohibition on use of the underground water for construction purpose does not justify the delay in completion of the construction. In any case, no material has been

7

placed by the opposite party on record to show that efforts were made by it during the relevant period to procure water from alternative sources but it was unable to obtain the water from the said sources. More importantly, in the Buyers Agreement executed between the parties, it was not disclosed to the buyers that since no underground water can be used for construction purpose, the developer will have to arrange water from alternative sources and in case it is not able to arrange water, the construction would be delayed and in that case, it will not be held responsible for the delay in completion of the construction.

9. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I hold that the delay in completion of the construction is not at all justified and, therefore, the opposite party must pay adequate and realistic compensation to the flat buyers, for the said delay.

10. The learned counsel for the complainants state on instructions from the complainants that though this Commission has awarded compensation in the form of interest @ 12% p.a. in the cases where the opposite party was directed to deliver possession within the time stipulated by this Commission and has awarded compensation in the form of interest @ 18% p.a. in cases where refund was ordered, the complainants in order to avoid any reasonable possibility of further litigation on the part of the opposite party, are ready and willing to accept compensation in the form of interest @ 10% p.a. for the period the possession has been delayed. They, however, are insisting upon the execution of the Conveyance Deed. In my view, the contention is well founded. The opposite party, besides paying compensation, must execute the Conveyance Deed of the flats in favour of the allottees so as to provide clear title deed of the said flats to them The title deed will also enable the allottess to raise finance if they so desire, against mortgage of the flats purchased by them.

This is also their request that the construction of the flats should be complete in all respects and the requisite Occupancy Certificate applicable to the allotted flats should be obtained by the opposite party before possession of the flat is offered to them. This is also their contention that all the facilities and amenities as per the contractual obligations of the opposite party should be available by the time the possession is offered to them. In my view, the opposite party cannot in law offer possession of the flats to the allottees, without obtaining the requisite Occupancy Certificate / part Occupancy Certificate which permits occupation of the allotted flats. The opposite party should also provide all the amenities and facilities as per its contractual obligations, since it will not be possible for the allottees to enjoy the possession of the flats without such facilities and amenities being in place. It goes without saying that the flats should otherwise be complete in all respects and should be in a habitable position at the time the possession is offered.

11. The complaints are, therefore, disposed of with the following directions:-

The opposite party shall complete the construction of the flats allotted to the allottees/complainants in all respects, provide all the facilities and amenities as per its contractual obligations, obtain the requisite Occupancy Certificate/ part Occupancy Certificate and then offer possession of the said flats to the complainants on or before

31.8.2017.

1.

If further construction of the towers in which flats have been allotted to the aforesaid 2.

8

complainants is lying stopped, it shall be resumed by the opposite party within two months from today.

The allottees/complainants other than the complainant in CC No.501 of 2015 shall be paid compensation in the form of simple interest @ 10% per annum w.e.f. the committed date of possession till the date the possession in terms of this order is offered to them.

3.

The complainants/allottees in CC No.501 of 2015will be paid compensation in the form of simple interest @ 10% p.a. w.e.f. 20.9.2014, till the date the possession in terms of this order is offered to them. They will also be paid the contractual compensation at the rate of Rs.5/- per sq.ft. per month of the super area of the flat for the period between 14.10.2009 to 20.9.2014.

4.

The opposite party shall pay Rs.5,000/- each as the cost of litigation in each complaint.5.

......................J

V.K. JAIN

PRESIDING MEMBER

9