Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

Sanjay Manidhar And ... v. Emaar Mgf Land Ltd. ...

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Feb 14, 2022
Judgment
Subsequent
References
CaseIQ
Case Information
CITATION CODES
citation codes
CASE NO.

Consumer Case No. 3525 of 2017

Attorney(S)

Mr. Sushil Kaushik, Advocate, for the Complainant;

Mr. Rajeev Agarwal, Advocate, for the Opp.Party.

JUDGES

R.K. Agrawal, President

S.M. Kantikar, Member

See more information ... Less ...
Smart Summary (Beta)

Factual and Procedural Background

This Complaint under Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed by the Complainants — resale purchasers who bought a residential unit (Unit No. EHF-350-C-GF-017, 1,750 sq. ft.) in the "Emerald Hills" project from the original allottee — against the Opposite Party, Emaar MGF Land Ltd., for failure to deliver possession despite having paid a substantial part of the sale consideration.

Key factual points recorded in the opinion:

  • The project was launched pursuant to License No. 10 dated 21.05.2009. The Builder-Buyer Agreement was executed on 28.12.2009 (application dated earlier, 06.06.2009).
  • Total sale consideration for the unit was Rs. 72,25,858/-, of which the Complainants had paid Rs. 50,92,397/-. The Opposite Party acknowledged the transfer and issued an acknowledgment letter; Builder-Buyer Agreement dated 28.03.2012 (as referenced in the complaint text) was executed between the parties.
  • Clause 13(a) of the Agreement provided for handing over possession within 27 months from the date of execution of the Agreement, plus a 3-month grace period for applying for and obtaining the Occupation Certificate (i.e., possession due by around June 2012).
  • On inspection after the prescribed period had passed, the Complainants found the site largely unfinished with skeleton structures and alleged abandonment; they alleged deficiency in service, unfair/restrictive trade practice and mental and financial hardship.
  • The Complainants sought, inter alia, (a) specific performance (handing over possession or a ready-to-move equivalent unit) or alternatively market-rate compensation of Rs. 1,75,00,000/-, (b) interest at 12% p.a. from the date possession was due, (c) immunity from escalations, (d) Rs. 5,00,000/- for mental agony and litigation costs, and (e) other reliefs.

Procedurally, the Opposite Party filed a Written Statement resisting the Complaint on multiple grounds (maintainability, lack of consumer status, jurisdiction clause, limitation, absence of valid cause of action and reliance upon contractual compensation clauses). The Commission heard counsel, perused materials on record, and delivered the decision disposing of the Complaint with directions.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the Complainants qualify as "consumers" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and whether the Complaint is maintainable before this Commission.
  2. Whether the Complaint is barred by limitation under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
  3. Whether the Complainants have a valid cause of action where possession has not been delivered despite payment of substantial sums and lapse of the contractual period.
  4. Whether the contractual clause providing delay compensation at Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. per month is binding and adequate, or whether the Complainants may claim higher compensation/penal interest (claimed at 12% p.a.).
  5. Whether alleged delays caused by other allottees or slowdowns in the real estate market absolve the developer of liability for delay in handing over possession.
  6. Whether the Opposite Party can rely on Clause 13(a) read with force majeure or other contractual provisions to escape broader consumer remedies for deficiency in service.

Arguments of the Parties

Complainants' Arguments

  • The Complainants purchased the unit from the original allottee, paid Rs. 50,92,397/- out of Rs. 72,25,858/-, and have not been handed possession despite expiry of the contractual period.
  • Representatives and brokers assured timely completion; the Builder-Buyer Agreement contained onerous one-sided clauses imposed on buyers.
  • Construction was stalled and the site appeared abandoned; Opposite Party has shown ulterior motive to extract money, constituting deficiency in service and unfair/restrictive trade practices.
  • The contractual delay compensation of Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. per month is meagre (about 1.4% p.a.) and inadequate; Complainants seek adequate compensation, interest and damages for mental agony and litigation costs.

Opposite Party's Arguments

  • The Complaint is not maintainable: the Complainants are not "consumers" (allegedly bought for investment/commercial purpose), Complainant No.1 did not authorize Complainant No.2, parties agreed to exclusive jurisdiction of Gurgaon courts, claim is not beyond Rs. 1 crore, and the complaint is time-barred under Section 24A.
  • The Complaint lacks a valid cause of action; terms were explained and agreed with free will. Any delay resulted from default by some allottees and market slowdowns; the developer is making efforts to complete the project and has provided completion timelines.
  • Compensation is contractually fixed under Clause 15(1) at Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. per month; Complainants agreed to that remedy and cannot claim penal interest of 12% as such a claim would be barred by Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act.
  • There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice; the Complaint should be dismissed with costs.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. v. Abhishek Khanna, (2021) 1 CPJ 60 (SC) The Supreme Court held that a very low delay compensation (example given of Rs. 7.50 per sq. ft. per month) may be inadequate. The Commission relied on this authority to conclude that the contractually stipulated Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. per month is also inadequate and cannot be treated as the only remedy available to the Complainants.
Kshitij Jain v. Emaar MGF Land Ltd., Consumer Complaint No. 386 of 2020 (decided 04.02.2020) Held that slowdown in the real estate market or non-payment by some allottees cannot be permitted to indefinitely delay possession; the developer must make alternative arrangements to complete the project. The Commission followed this coordinate decision to reject the Opposite Party's contention that delay caused by other allottees absolves the developer of responsibility for delay in handing over possession.
Amitava Shankar Guha v. Emaar MGF Land Ltd., (2019) 4 CPJ 522 (NC) A Coordinate Bench awarded 8% simple interest in a similar matter involving the same project ("Emerald Hills"). The Commission respectfully followed that decision and awarded 8% simple interest on amounts deposited by the Complainants from July 2012 until handing over of possession.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Commission's analysis proceeded in distinct steps, grounded in the record and cited authorities:

  1. Maintainability: The Commission rejected the Opposite Party's maintainability objections because: (a) no documentary evidence was produced to show that the Complainants purchased the unit for commercial trading; (b) the Agreement was in the joint names of both Complainants, so no separate authorization from one spouse to the other was necessary; (c) the claim amount and reliefs meant the Complaint was properly before the Commission; and (d) contemporaneous admissions and website updates showed the project remained incomplete, so the Complaint was not time-barred under Section 24A as the right to complain subsists until possession is delivered.
  2. Cause of Action: The Commission found a valid cause of action because possession had not been delivered despite contractual timelines expiring and substantial payments being made by the Complainants. The Opposite Party did not (in its pleading) establish events or force majeure reasons that would legitimately extend the timeline.
  3. Contractual Clauses and Force Majeure: The Commission observed that Clause 13(a) (possession timeline) cannot be used in isolation if the developer wishes to invoke force majeure or other clauses to justify delay; no specific force majeure events were pleaded by the Opposite Party, so that defence failed.
  4. Adequacy of Contractual Delay Compensation: While acknowledging the agreed contractual term (Clause 15) which fixed delay compensation at Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. per month, the Commission held that such a sum is manifestly inadequate. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Ireo and prior Commission decisions, the Commission concluded the contractual provision could not be treated as the sole or exclusive remedy where it is one-sided and grossly inadequate.
  5. Quantum of Compensation / Interest: Balancing precedents and the present real estate market conditions (including effects of the COVID-19 pandemic), the Commission found the Complainants' claimed penal interest at 12% p.a. to be high. The Commission, following a co-ordinate bench's decision in Amitava Shankar Guha (which related to the same project), awarded 8% simple interest on amounts deposited by the Complainants from July 2012 until the date of handing over possession.
  6. Developer's Responsibility Despite Others' Defaults: The Commission accepted the reasoning in Kshitij Jain that developers cannot shift the burden to innocent purchasers when some allottees default or the market slows; the developer must make alternate arrangements so the project is completed within the stipulated period.
  7. Final Directions: On the basis of the above findings (deficiency in service, delay of over nine years, inordinate delay), the Commission directed the Opposite Party to hand over physical possession complete in all respects and execute necessary documents after obtaining the Occupation Certificate (if not already obtained), within six weeks, subject to outstanding dues, and to pay 8% simple interest from July 2012 until handing over, plus Rs. 25,000 towards litigation expenses.

Holding and Implications

COMPLAINT DISPOSED OF

Holding (direct effects):

  • The Complaint was allowed and disposed of. The Opposite Party was directed to hand over physical possession of Unit No. EHF-350-C-GF-017, complete in all respects, and to execute the required documents in favour of the Complainants (subject to payment of any outstanding dues), after obtaining the Occupation Certificate, within six weeks from the date of the order.
  • The Opposite Party was directed to pay 8% simple interest per annum on the amounts deposited by the Complainants from July 2012 until the date of handing over possession.
  • The Opposite Party was directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- to the Complainants as litigation expenses.
  • Pending application(s), if any, were disposed of.

Implications and broader effect:

  • The Commission refused to treat a one-sided, nominal contractual delay compensation clause as an exclusive remedy where it is manifestly inadequate, following higher and coordinate authority (Ireo Grace and Amitava Shankar Guha respectively).
  • The decision reaffirms that developers cannot indefinitely delay possession by blaming market slowdowns or other allottees' defaults; developers are expected to make alternative arrangements to complete projects within the stipulated periods (as reiterated from Kshitij Jain).
  • The Commission applied established precedents rather than creating a novel legal principle; the award (8% simple interest and litigation expenses) follows and applies prior decisions to the facts at hand.
Show all summary ...

1. This Complaint, under Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been filed by the Complainants, who are the Resale Purchasers/Buyers and have purchased a Residential Unit for their own use from the Original Allottee, against the Opposite Party, namely, Emaar MGF Land Ltd. Though a considerable part-payment of Rs. 50,92,397/- towards sale consideration as against the total sale consideration of Rs. 72,25,858/- already stands paid by the Complainants and there is inordinate delay over and above the period prescribed for handing over the possession of the Unit in question but they have not been given possession by the Opposite Party.

2. In brief, the facts are that in a Project, namely, “Emerald Hills” of the Opposite Party, which had been launched pursuant to a License, bearing No. 10 dated 21.05.2009, purported to have been obtained by it from the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana, for construction and developing a Residential Gated Colony in Sector-65, Gurgaon, Haryana, the Complainants had purchased a Residential Unit, being Unit No. EHF-350-C-GF-017, admeasuring 1750 sq. ft., from the Original Buyer/Allottee. At that time, the Complainants were assured by the Representatives and Brokers of the Opposite Party that the Project would be completed within time and the date committed to the Original Buyer/Allottee for handing over the possession would remain unchanged. The total sale consideration of the Unit was Rs. 72,25,858/-, out of which a sum of Rs. 50,92,397/- already stands paid by the Complainants. The Opposite Party had acknowledged the Transfer of the Unit to the Complainants and also issued Acknowledgment Letter, authenticating the transfer and crediting/transferring the amount received by the Opposite Party from the Original Allottee/Buyer in the name of the Complainants. The Builder Buyer Agreement dated 28.03.2012 was also executed between the Parties.

3. It is averred that as per the payment plan, which was a Construction Linked Payment Plan, the Complainants have paid regular instalments, which includes extra charges like service tax and interest on delayed payment @ 24% per annum compounded quarterly. While the date of Application was 06.06.2009, the Builder Buyer Agreement was executed between the Parties on 28.12.2009 and, as per the same, the proposed date of possession was 28.03.2012. Some of the Clauses of the Agreement, which the Buyers were made to sign without any modification, were unreasonable and one-sided in favour of the Opposite Party only. There was a substantial gap between the date of application (06.06.2009) and signing of the Agreement (28.12.2009), which had been sent to the Complainants for signature only after paying the application money. The Complainants were told that the Agreement has to be signed as it is and in case it is not acceptable then the allotment will stand cancelled and earnest money will be forfeited.

4. As per Clause 13(a) of the Agreement, the possession was required to be handed over to the Complainants within 27 months from the date of execution of the Agreement and further 3 months' grace period, provided to the Opposite Party for applying and obtaining the Occupation Certificate, but it has not been delivered till now. The said Clause reads as under:—

“13. POSSESSION

a. Time of handing over the Possession

Subject to terms of this clause and subject to the Allottee(s) having complied with all the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and not being in default under any of the provisions of this Agreement and compliance with all provisions, formalities, documentation etc., as prescribed by the Company, the Company proposes to hand over the possession of the Independent Floor within 27 months from the date of execution of this Agreement. The Allottee(s) agrees and understands that the Company shall be entitled to a grace period of 3 months, for applying and obtaining the occupation certificate in respect of the Independent Floor and/or the Project.”

5. It is the stated by the Complainants that after the aforesaid period provided for handing over possession was over and they had not been given possession, they visited the site and found that the construction work was not in progress and it seemed to be an abandoned piece of land, with skeleton structure of semi-constructed building, which was not complete despite lapse of many years. Despite repeated requests, the possession has not been given, which shows the ulterior motive of the Opposite Party to extract money from the innocent people fraudulently as also deficiency in service and unfair/restrictive trade practices on its part. The Complainants are suffering from disruption of their living arrangements, mental torture/agony and financial losses.

6. As per Clause 15(1) of the Agreement, the Opposite Party is required to pay a meagre compensation of Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. per month for the period of delay. The said compensation comes out to approximately 1.4% p.a., which too is to be paid after the period prescribed for completing the Project and delivering the possession is over. The Complainants have paid all the amounts demanded by the Opposite Party, which means that the Opposite Party has not only collected the cost of the flat but also the profit, but the project is not complete and possession has not yet been given to the Complainants, which amounts to gross deficiency in service and unfair/restrictive trade practices adopted by the Opposite Party and the Complainants are to be adequately compensated therefor.

7. In this factual matrix, the present Complaint has been filed by the Complainants, seeking the following Reliefs:

“a) Direct the Opposite Party to handover the possession of the apartment bearing number EHF-350-C-GF-017, complete in all respects to the Complainants immediately as per the Buyer's Agreement and execute all the necessary and required documents in respect of the said flat in favour of the complainant or in the alternative provide a ready to move in flat to the complainant which is of identical size and in similar locality or in alternative pay a sum of Rs. 1,75,00,000/-, being the available market rate of the similar house @ Rs. 10,000/- per sq. ft., the apartment being of the size 1750 sq. ft. to enable the Complainant to purchase another house on their own.

b) Direct the Opposite Party to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the sum collected by the OP towards the house from the date of possession as per the buyer's agreement till the actual possession.

c) Grant immunity to the complainants from payment of any charge incurred due to any escalation in cost including enhanced Service Tax.

d) Direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) to the complainants towards the mental agony and harassment and the cost of litigation.

d) Any other order(s) as may be deemed fit and appropriate may also kindly be passed.”

8. The Complaint has been resisted by the Opposite Party by filing its Written Statement/Reply. The maintainability of the Complaint has been challenged on the grounds that (i) the Complainants are not ‘consumers’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as they are permanent residents of Gurgaon and have booked the property for the purpose of investments/commercial purpose to reap financial benefit; (ii) Complainant No. 1 has not authorized Complainant No. 2 to file the present Complaint before this Commission; (iii) vide Clause 37 of the Agreement, the Parties have agreed for exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts at Gurgaon, Haryana; (iv) the claim of the Complainants is not more than Rs. 1.00 Crore; and (v) the Complaint has been filed beyond the time prescribed under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 vis-à-vis the cause of action.

9. Further, it is contended by the Opposite Party that the Complaint is devoid of a valid cause of action. At the time of booking, the Opposite Party had duly explained the terms and conditions to the Complainants and they had signed the Agreement with their own consent and freewill. Though certain other Allottees of the Project defaulted/delayed the payments, which resulted in slow development and extraordinary delay in the Project, but the Opposite Party has been making all possible efforts to complete the construction of the Project, inasmuch as it has deployed about 15000 labourers on the Project sites across the country. The Opposite Party has already provided the Allottees with the target Completion schedule for the Project and shall also keep them updated of the progress regularly. In fact the Project is near completion and now the Opposite Party is in the process of applying for Occupation Certificate and as soon as the same is received the Opposite Party shall offer the possession to the Allottees. The Complainants have never raised any grievance of the Clauses in the Agreement being wholly one sided, unfair and unreasonable, as also delay in construction etc. before filing of the Complaint. Clause 13(a) of the Agreement, which provides for handing over possession of the Unit in question within 27 months from the date of execution of the Agreement and 3 months' grace period for applying and obtaining completion/occupation certificate, cannot be read in isolation and has to be read with other Sub-Clauses of Clause 13 and other Clauses of the same Agreement, which contemplates delay for Force Majeure event or any other reason beyond the control of the Opposite Party. Assuming but not admitting the delay, if any, in delivery of possession, has to be compensated in terms of Clause-15 of the Agreement, which provides for compensation of Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. per month for the period of delay, and, therefore, the Complainants cannot claim penal interest @12%, which is barred by Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act because the Complainants have agreed to accept the said compensation in the Agreement. Further, the Complaint is not maintainable in view of settled law in a plethora of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the agreed clauses of Contract are binding on the parties. Seeking relief beyond the scope of the Agreement is misconceived and shows the malafide intentions of the Complainants. Whatever amounts have been deposited by the Complainants have been deposited as per the Construction Linked Payment Plan in consonance with the achievement of various stages of the construction. If there is any delay, it has caused due to Force Majeure conditions beyond the control of the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party is liable to compensate only in terms of the relevant Clauses of the Agreement dated 28.12.2009. There was no deficiency in service or failure in service or unfair/restrictive trade practices on the part of the Opposite Party and, therefore, the Complaint deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

12. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the material available on record.

13. As far as challenge to the maintainability of the Complaint on the grounds mentioned in Para-8, referred to above, is concerned, in our considered view, none of the grounds are tenable. In support of the plea that the Complainants are permanent residents of Gurgaon and have purchased the Unit in question for commercial purposes and, therefore, do not fall within the purview of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Opposite Party has not filed any documentary evidence. The Opposite Party has not been able to establish that the Complainants are ordinarily indulged into purchasing and selling activities of flats/apartments in order to earn profit. Merely stating that the Complainants have purchased the Unit in question for commercial purposes is not sufficient to hold so. As the Unit in question has been purchased by both the Complainants in their joint name and the Agreement has also been executed between both the Complainants on First Part and the Opposite Party on the other, the Complaint can be filed either by any one of the Complainants, if the facts and circumstances so warrant, or by both the Complainants and, therefore, there is no requirement on the part of Complainant No. 1 to authorize Complainant No. 2, who is his wife and co-buyer/allotee, to file the Complaint. In view of the Reliefs/Prayers claimed in the Complaint, quoted above, it cannot be accepted that the claim of the Complainants is not more than Rs. 1.00 Crore and they are bound to approach the Courts at Gurgaon. The Complaint is maintainable before this Commission. Further, in view of admission by the Opposite Party in its Written Statement/Reply that the Project is near completion and as soon as the Occupation Certificate is received by the Opposite Party, the offer shall be made to the Complainants, as also the information dated 01.11.2017 uploaded by the Opposite Party on its Website relating to construction update, which shows that the construction is still incomplete and houses are lying in unfinished state (see page 87-88 of the Complaint), it cannot be said that the Complaint has been filed beyond the prescribed period under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 vis-à-vis the cause of action. The Complainants, who have not been handed over possession of the Unit in question, are entitled to file the Complaint at any time before the possession is handed over to them.

14. The contention of the Opposite Party that the Complaint is devoid of a valid cause of action is also misconceived. The Project, having the Unit in question, being incomplete has not been denied by the Opposite Party and, therefore, the Complainants, who have not been handed over possession of the Unit despite lapse of considerable period over and above the period prescribed therefor and payment of huge money, are within their rights to approach this Commission by filing the present Complaint.

15. Even if at the time of booking the Complainants were explained all the terms and conditions of the Agreement and they had signed the same with their own freewill and consent, it is not in dispute that till date possession has not been given to the Complainants, which was required to be handed over by June, 2012, going by the period of 30 months from the date of execution of the Agreement (28.12.2009), including the 3 months' grace period available to the Opposite Party for applying and obtaining the Occupation Certificate, and there is inordinate delay of over 9 years in doing so.

16. Further, it is contended by the Opposite Party that Clause 13(a) of the Agreement, which deals with the period of handing over possession, extracted above, cannot be read in isolation and has to be read with other Sub-Clauses/Clauses of the Agreement, which contemplates for Force Majeure events/conditions or any other reason beyond the control of the Opposite Party. We find that no such events/conditions/reasons have been given by the Opposite Party in its Written Statement/Reply and, therefore, it cannot take shelter of the stated plea.

17. As per Clause-15 of the Agreement, the Opposite Party is required to pay delay compensation for the period of delay in handing over possession @ Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. per month. In our considered opinion, this compensation is too meagre and cannot be accepted as adequate compensation. It is well settled by a catena of decisions that such Clauses are not applicable and the Complainants are to be adequately compensated. In the Case of Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. v. Abhishek Khanna, (2021) 1 CPJ 60 (SC), wherein delay compensation of Rs. 7.50 per sq. ft. per month had been offered to be paid as delay compensation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold the compensation offered as inadequate. We are of the conscious of the fact that in present case, delay compensation of Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. per month, which as stated by the Complainants comes out to 1.4% per annum, has been stipulated in the Agreement but too cannot be treated as adequate. Accordingly, the submission of the Opposite Party that the Complainants are entitled to the delay compensation of Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. per month and cannot claim beyond the agreed terms and conditions of the Agreement cannot be accepted. While it is well settled that one sided terms and conditions incorporated in the Agreement to Sale favouring the Seller only are not applicable and binding on the Purchaser, we also feel that in the present real estate market conditions as a result of Covid-19 Pandemic the claim of the Complainants for penal interest @ 12% per annum is also on the higher side.

18. Insofar as contention of the Opposite Party that there was slow development and extraordinary delay in the Project on account of some Allottees of the Project not making the payments is concerned, this Commission recently in the Case of Kshitij Jain v. Emaar MGF Land Ltd. (Consumer Complaint No. 386 of 2020), decided on 04.02.2020, while negating the said contention, has held as under:

“19. Further, for the slowdown in the real estate market and resultant non-making of payments by some allottees of the Project, the Complainants cannot be blamed. It is true that the Project is dependent upon the availability of funds and for this reason the construction work of the Project may be hampered but for that reason the Complainants cannot be made to wait indefinitely for taking the possession of the Unit booked. It is for the Developer, which has floated the Project, to look for alternative arrangements so that the Project is completed within the stipulated period.”

19. As regards the contention of the Opposite Party that it has already provided the Allottees with the target completion schedule for the Project and shall also keep them updated of the progress regularly, we may note that it is not in dispute that even till today the possession has not been offered to the Complainants, perhaps for want of Occupation Certificate, which as stated by the Opposite Party is yet to be applied for. In this view of the matter, the Opposite Party has not been able to establish that the Project is complete and Occupation Certificate has also been obtained by it.

20. It is not the case of the Opposite Party that there was any default on the part of the Complainants in making the payments demanded by it, inasmuch as it is stated by the Opposite Party that there was default on the part of the Allottees in making the payments. Though it was a Construction Linked Payment Plan and the Complainants have already paid the aforesaid huge amount, which has not been denied by the Opposite Party, in the Written Statement/Reply no instance relating to any amount not paid by the Complainants has been given by the Opposite Party. In such a situation, even if there was any default on the part of the Complainants in making some payment demanded by the Opposite Party, they cannot be blamed as the Project was not complete and it was a Construction Linked Payment Plan.

21. In view of the foregoing discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party in not handing over possession to the Complainants by June, 2012, by which time the period prescribed under Clause 13(a) of the Agreement for handing over possession of the Unit in question had expired. Still, possession has not been offered to the Complainants and there is inordinate delay of over 9 years in handing over possession to the Complainants. They are entitled to a reasonable compensation therefor. In our considered opinion, delay compensation @ 8% simple interest per annum on the amounts deposited by the Complainants from July, 2012 till the date of handing over possession would meet the ends of justice. Needless to state that in the Case of Amitava Shankar Guha v. Emaar MGF Land Ltd., (2019) 4 CPJ 522 (NC), which involves similar facts and circumstances as also the Project in question, namely, “Emerald Hills”, 8% simple interest has been awarded by a Coordinate Bench of this Commission and, accordingly, respectfully following the said decision, same interest is being awarded in this case.

22. Accordingly, the Complaint is disposed off with a direction to the Opposite Party to handover physical possession of the Unit in question to the Complainants, complete in all respects, and execute the required documents in their favour, subject to payment of outstanding dues, if any, after obtaining Occupation Certificate, if not obtained by now, within a period of six weeks from today and pay 8% simple interest on the amounts deposited by the Complainants from July, 2012 till the date of handing over possession. The Opposite Party shall also pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as litigation expenses to the Complainants.

23. Pending Application, if any, stands disposed off.

© 2026 Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

x

Alert

Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature.
Sign Up Login
x