Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(iv) To pay Rs. 55,000/- as litigation expenses.

Defence of the Opposite Parties

3. Upon notice, the opposite parties No.1 to 4 appeared and filed reply to the complaint, raising certain preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable as the complainants have suppressed the material facts and have to prove that they fall within the definition of "Consumer" under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the CPA, 1986. The complainants had purchased the aforesaid floor in resale from one, Mr. Naresh Bhatia and thereafter was transferred in the name of the complainants. Even as per the documents submitted by one of the complainants, he is owner and resident of H.No.178/2 Sector 45-A, Chandigarh which further substantiates that he had sought to buy the housing unit in question for commercial purposes and not for residential purpose. This address also finds mention as the complainants' permanent address in the Residential Floor Allottee Arrangement and Tripartite Agreement. Even at the time of booking, the complainants told the OPs that they were booking the unit in question to earn profits as they were involved in the real estate business. Due to the ongoing slump in the real estate market, they are no longer interested in retaining the unit, in question, and therefore filed this false and frivolous complaint to unlawfully escape their obligations towards the OPs. The present complaint is not maintainable in view of the Arbitration Clause (Clause 13) in the said Residential Floor Allottee Arrangement. In the instant case, complainants opted for Subvention Linked Plan under which he had to pay 15% of the Basic Sale Price, following which the Residential Floor Allottee Arrangement is executed between the Allottee(s) and the Developer. Subsequent amount/subvention amount is called at the start of construction. At this stage complainants had executed a Tripartite Agreement with Bank (from which the complainants took the loan-OP No.5), the Developer (OPs No.1 and 3) and the allottee(s)-complainant. Amounts under this plan become due in accordance with the stage of construction and the Bank pays these amounts as and when they accrue after taking permission from the Allottee(s) and itself surveying the site and verifying the construction status. Under the Tripartite Agreement, the EMI commences from the month following the month in which the loan disbursement is complete. The present complainants have got no cause of action. It was submitted that complainants are claiming interest @ 18% per annum from the date of payment whereas the actual position is that market rate of interest have been reduced a lot and even his own documents show that his loan is @ 8.45% P.A approx. The OPs have already paid interest on subvention on behalf of the complainants as per agreement for two years. Since, complainants have themselves not paid interest for the same period, as such the entire complaint claiming interest for period which had been paid by OPs is patently false vexatious and without cause of action. It was submitted that there was specific clause that specified time period was tentative and would be subject to Force Majeure and other events effecting the construction of the project within the agreed time. It was submitted that due to demonetization and slow down in the markets, the construction sector and payments which were to be received by opposite parties were seriously effected and due to which the work of construction got little delayed which were beyond the control of the OPs. It was submitted that not only slowdown in real estate sector was effecting OPs but sudden announcement of the demonetization by the Government and subsequent restrictions on cash totally stopped the work resulting in shifting of entire work force as constructions industry is totally dependant on work force which required cash. It was further submitted that subsequently due to implementation of GST also the work has been effected as precious days of work were wasted due to transformation of vendors over GST and supply of raw material at agreed prices. It was further pleaded that the opposite parties entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) dated 03.02.2006 with the Government of Punjab and as per Clause 5(e) thereof, the State Government was to acquire land under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and transfer the same to the opposite parties for development. However, the State Government failed to acquire any land for the opposite parties and, as such, the approved plan of the entire project also shows certain "Critical Area' i.e. the lands, which are not in their possession, due to failure of the State Government. The lands, which are not available with them form 10% of the total land required for the project, due to which laying of lines for basic services is not complete. The request was made to the Land Acquisition Collector, Greater Mohali, vide letter dated 19.01.2012, requesting the State Government to acquire 23.21 acres of land, which falls within the master plan of the project, but without any result. However, opposite party No.1 managed to enter into a Land Use Agreement with the local farmer, from whose land an access road has been laid for proper access to the project. Thus, the delay, if any, in the completion of the project is due to inaction on the part of GMADA. On merits, it was submitted that the agreement dated 04.10.2013 was superseded by subsequent agreement dated 28.11.2014 which has not been challenged by the complainants as evident from the documents filed. It was further submitted that in case the complainants claim that they were threatened to sign new agreement after lapse of one year, than under CPA his challenge to same is time barred as even from 28.11.2014 two years expired on 28.11.2016. Moreover payment was taken as per agreement dated 28.11.2014 and it was acted upon and never protested. All other allegations of the complaint were denied and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

10. Learned counsel for the opposite parties No.1 to 4 vehemently contended that there was no specific period mentioned in the agreement for delivery of possession. The opposite parties were just to make endeavour to deliver the possession of the unit, in question, within 30 months, with an extended period of 6 months from the date of agreement. Moreover, the complainants cannot allege any delay on the part of the opposite parties, as they themselves failed to pay the due amounts regularly on time. It was further contended that the delay, if any, in completing the project was on the part of GMADA, who failed to acquire the land required for the project of the opposite parties, as per MoA dated 03.02.2006. Even a request was made to the Land Acquisition Collector, Greater Mohali, vide letter dated 19.01.2012, to acquire 23.21 acres of land, which falls within the master plan of the project, but to no effect. In these circumstances, no liability can be fastened upon the opposite parties No.1 to 4. Moreover, the construction at the project is going on in full swing and they will deliver the possession of the unit, in question, to the complainants immediately after completion of the construction work. It was submitted that due to demonetization and slow down in the market the construction sector and payments which were to be received by OPs were seriously effected and due to which the work of construction got little delayed which were beyond the control of the OPs. It was submitted that not only slowdown in real estate sector was effecting OPs but sudden announcement of the demonetization by the Government and subsequent restrictions on cash totally stopped the work resulting in shifting of entire work force as constructions industry is totally dependant on work force which required cash. It was further submitted that subsequently due to implementation of GST also the work has been effected as precious days of work were wasted due to transformation of vendors over GST and supply of raw material at agreed prices. It was further contended that the complainants purchased the unit, in question, for commercial purpose and, thus, they do not fall under the definition of 'consumers'. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.

15. It has been pleaded by the OPs that due to demonetization and slow down in the market the construction sector and payments which were to be received by OPs were seriously effected and due to which the work of construction got little delayed which were beyond the control of the OPs. It was submitted that not only slowdown in real estate sector was effecting OPs but sudden announcement of the demonetization by the Government and subsequent restrictions on cash totally stopped the work resulting in shifting of entire work force as constructions industry is totally dependant on work force which required cash. It was further submitted that subsequently due to implementation of GST also the work has been effected as precious days of work were wasted due to transformation of vendors over GST and supply of raw material at agreed prices.