ABHAY RASHMIKANT YAGNIK Vs. CCI PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, Advocate, for the complainant and Mr. Sanjib Sen, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Dinesh Kumar Seth, Advocate, for the opposite party.

(2.) Abhay Rashmikant Yagnik has filed CC/689/2017, for directing the opposite party to (i) rectify the deficiencies in construction of his flat and handover its possession; (ii) pay interest @18% per annum on the amount paid by him, from the date of respective deposit till the date of handing over possession; (iii) pay Rs.50000.00, as costs of litigation; and (iv) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(3.) The complainant stated that CCI Projects Private Limited (the opposite party) was a company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of development and construction of group housing project. The opposite party launched a group housing project in the name of 'Rivali Park', consisting of hotels, offices, shops, flats, duplexes, row houses, penthouses etc. at City Survey Nos.163A and 165, village Magathane, Western Express Highway, Taluka Borivali, Mumbai, in the year 2005 and made wide publicity of its facilities and amenities. The said project had two wings and the residential wing was named as 'White Spring'. The complainant was in need of residence for himself and was looking for it, in that locality. The complainant booked a 2BHK flat, in above project and deposited booking amount. The opposite party, vide Allotment letter dtd. 21/9/2010, allotted Flat No.12-A, saleable area approx. 781 sq.ft, for basic consideration of Rs.9411750.00, Wing A, 'White Spring 1A', in project 'Rivali Park' to the complainant. Clause-18 of the Allotment letter provides 36 months from the date of commencement of the construction, for completion of the construction with grace period of six months. Annexure-1 of Allotment letter provides 'construction linked payment plan'. As per demand, the complainant deposited instalments regularly. The opposite party executed an Agreement dtd. 6/10/2012, in respect of above flat. By the time of the execution of the agreement, the complainant had deposited Rs.4705875.00. The opposite party unilaterally changed the date of possession as 'on or before August, 2014', in Clause-17 of the agreement. The opposite party, vide letter dtd. 13/7/2014, again unilaterally changed the date of possession as quarter 2 of 2015. The complainant had discussion on 10/1/2015 with the opposite party, then they informed that soft possession would be handed over in May, 2015. The opposite party, vide letter dtd. 15/4/2015, again unilaterally changed the date of possession as February, 2016. The complainant had meeting on 24/5/2015 with the opposite party, then they informed that they had terminated the agreement of earlier contractor and appointed a new contractor. The complainant claimed for delay compensation and asked to reimburse his rent. The complainant had meeting on 31/12/2015 with the opposite party, then they orally informed that expected date for possession as April, 2016. The opposite party vide letter dtd. 7/2/2016, informed that possession would be handed over on 11/5/2016. The complainant, through emails dtd. 7/2/2016, 16/2/2016 and 5/4/2016, expressed his anguish for unilaterally changing due date of possession, again and again. The complainant, through email dtd. 7/5/2016, again demanded for delay compensation. The opposite party, through email dtd. 19/6/2016, informed that fit-out process would to commence in the flat from 1/7/2016, expecting final possession up to 30/7/2016, subject to issue of 'occupation certificate' and raised various demands, which were payable at the time of possession. The complainant agreed to deposit the demanded amount on 12/7/2016 but informed the opposite party that he would take final possession. The complainant cleared all the dues on 18/7/2016 (except future maintenance charges). The complainant visited the flat and noticed various deficiencies in construction of the flat. Under the agreement, there was no provision for fit-out possession, which were got noted to the representative of the opposite party on 25/26/7/2016. The opposite party asked to make good the deficiencies at his own level, he would reimburse its costs. Later on, vide email dtd. 22/9/2016, declined to reimburse the costs. The opposite party offered final possession on 6/11/2016. The opposite party, vide letter dtd. 17/11/2017, put a condition for signing NOC on their format, for taking possession, which was protested by the complainant. The opposite party, vide email dtd. 30/11/2017, again insisted to sign NOC, which was signed by the complainant, then possession was handed over on 1/12/2016. Although possession was unreasonably delayed but opposite party did not pay compensation for delay. Then this complaint was filed on 9/3/2017, alleging deficiency in service.