9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n after giving benefit of the grace period to the OP, there could have been some merit in the contention. But, he having filed the complaint after expiry of the aforesaid timeline, clause 37 of the agreement would have no application. The possession of the house, as per the agreement, ought to have been delivered by December 2016, even after giving benefit of the grace period to the OP. The construction of the house is not complete till date and there is no certainty as to when the construction would be complete and the OP would be in a position to offer possession of the allotted flat after obtaining the requisite Occupancy Certificate. The learned counsel for the OP states that they have already committed July 2021 to RERA Authority for completing the construction and therefore, they will be in a position to deliver possession on or before that time. The opposite party shall refund the entire principal amount of ₹ 1,08,16,881/- to the complainant alongwith compensation in the form of simple interest @ 10% per annum from the date of each payment till the date of refund - Complaint disposed off. - CONSUMER CASE NO. 2590 OF 2017 - - - Dated:- 1-5-2019 - Mr. V. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the opposite party that vide its order dated 11.1.2013, the National Green Tribunal had passed order stopping extraction of ground water for construction purposes, as a result of which the builders became dependent upon Noida/Greater Noida authority for the supply of water. It is also alleged that in another matter Amit Kumar Ors. Vs. Union of India, the NGT had passed an interim order stopping the construction work within a radius of 10 km from Okhla Bird Sanctuary. It is also claimed in the written version filed by the opposite party that as per the contract between the parties in the event of delay, the alloteees entitled only to compensation @ ₹ 5/- per sq.ft. of super area per month for any delay in handing over possession. 4. A consumer complaint being CC No.650 of 2016 seeking refund of the amount paid by the allottee for allotment of a residential flat in this very project came to be decided by this Commission vide its order dated 6.3.2017. Admittedly, an appeal preferred by the OP against the said decision of the Commission was dismissed by the Hon ble Supreme Court and the order passed by this Commission is stated to have been complied with. Anoth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to an earlier order dated 14.08.2013, whereby NOIDA was directed to stop the construction work going on within a radius of 10 kms from Okhla Bird Sanctuary, without prior environmental clearance or in contravention of the same. The order dated 28.10.2013 shows that the aforesaid order applied to 49 projects out of which, 15 had already been completed and 7 had not begun. The Tribunal made it clear that its intention on 17.09.2013 was to extend the interim order dated 14.09.2013 to the persons or builders carrying on construction activity without environmental clearance or against the provisions of the environmental clearance. This is not the case of the opposite party that no environmental clearance was required or that it had not obtained such a clearance before it started the construction in this project. In such a case, the order passed by the National Green Tribunal would not apply to this project since the scope of the said order was limited to the construction activity being carried out without requisite environmental clearance or in contravention of the environmental clearance. If the opposite party had commenced construction of the project in question without obtaining th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NBWL. If there was a delay on the part of the Government of U.P. in sending the particulars relating to the environmental clearance given to the project, to the Ministry of Environment Forests, there was delay on the part of Ministry of Environment Forests in forwarding the matter to National Board for Wild Life or there was delay on the part of the National Board for Wild Life in completing its enquiry in terms of the order of the National Green Tribunal, the builder could always approach the said Tribunal for giving appropriate directions to the Government of U.P. or Ministry of Environment Forests or National Board for Wild Life as the case might be. 7. The learned counsel for the opposite party refers to the order of the NGT dated August 14, 2013. The aforesaid order clearly applied to the construction work which was going on within 10 km. radius of Okhla Birds Sanctuary without proper environmental clearance or in contravention of the same. If the OP had obtained the requisite environmental clearance before starting work on the project, the project was clearly outside the purview of the aforesaid order of the NGT. The learned counsel also draws my ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... maining part of the delay. 9. Though in the affidavit filed by way of evidence, the opposite party has also attributed the delay to some Writ Petitions filed in Allahabad High Court and the protest and agitation of farmers, no such plea has been taken in the written version. More importantly, there is no evidence of the construction at this particular site having been stayed by the Allahabad High Court or the agitation by the farmers having actually halted the work at the site of the construction. 10. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I hold that there is no justification for the delay on the part of the opposite party in offering possession to the complainants. 6. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the OP that in view of the provisions contained in RERA, this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the Consumer Complaint. This issue is no more res integra in view of the decision of this Commission dated 15.04.2019 passed in CC No.1764 of 2017 Ajay Nagpal Vs. M/s Today Homes Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and connected matters. 7. It is lastly contended by the learned counsel for the OP that since th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no application. 9. The learned counsel for the OP also submits that since they have not abandoned the project and want to deliver possession after completing the construction which is in progress, the complainant should not be allowed refund of the amount paid by him to the OP and should be made to wait till the construction is completed and the possession of the house is offered to him. I however, find no merit in this contention. As noted earlier, the possession of the house, as per the agreement, ought to have been delivered by December 2016, even after giving benefit of the grace period to the OP. The construction of the house is not complete till date and there is no certainty as to when the construction would be complete and the OP would be in a position to offer possession of the allotted flat after obtaining the requisite Occupancy Certificate. The learned counsel for the OP states that they have already committed July 2021 to RERA Authority for completing the construction and therefore, they will be in a position to deliver possession on or before that time. The learned counsel for the complainant however, states on instructions that the complainant is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
