1.      Heard Mr. Sushil Kaushik, Advocate, for the complainants and Mr. Rabin Majumder, Advocate, for the opposite party.

2.      Neelam Tandon and Subhash Chander Tandon have filed above complaint for directing the opposite party to pay (i) delay compensation in the form of interest @12% per annum on their deposit from due date of possession till 26.05.2017; (ii) interest @24% per annum, compounded monthly on the amount of delayed compensation from 26.05.2017 till the date of its realization; (iii) Rs.500000/-, as compensation for mental agony, harassment and the litigation costs; and (v) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3.      The complainants stated that 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 and selling its unit to the prospective buyers. The opposite party launched a group housing project of independent build-up floors, in the name of “Emerald Hill-Floors” at villages Nangli Umarpur, Badshahpur, Maidawas, Sector-65, Gurgaon, in the year 2009 and made wide publicity of its facilities and amenities. The complainants inquired about the detail of the plan from the office of the opposite party, who informed that possession would be delivered within 27 months of the booking. Believing upon the representations of the opposite party, the complainants booked a floor on 11.06.2009 and deposited booking amount of Rs.500000/-. The opposite party allotted Unit No. EHF-350-I-GF-126, super area 1750 sq.ft., basic sale price of Rs.7890000/- and executed Buyer’s Agreement in their favour on 28.12.2009. Annexure-III of the agreement provides payment plan as “construction link payment plan”. As per demand of the opposite party, the complainants deposited Rs.8378815/- till 13.09.2013. Clause-13(a) of the agreement provides due date for possession as 27 months from the date of agreement with grace period of 3 months. Due date of possession expired in June, 2012. The opposite party offered possession, vide letter dated 04.10.2016, along with demand of Rs.1414729/-. The complainants deposited the amount, completed formalities and took possession on 26.05.2017. Although possession was unreasonably delayed but the opposite party did not give any amount as delay compensation as per clause-15(a) of the agreement. Then this complaint was filed on 02.01.2019, alleging deficiency in service.

4.      The opposite party filed written reply on 05.08.2019, in which, booking of the floor on 11.06.2009, allotment of floor, execution of Buyer’s Agreement dated 28.12.2009 and deposits made by the complainants, have not been denied. The opposite party stated that the payment plan was “construction link payment plan”. As the construction was delayed as instalments were demanded/deposited with delay. The opposite party completed the construction of the floor and offered possession, vide letter dated 04.10.2016. The complainants raised demand of delay compensation as such as per clause-15(a) of the agreement, delay compensation of Rs.837699/- was paid/adjusted in the final demand, which was acknowledged by the complainants and they executed an undertaking on 10.02.2017 that they would not claim any further compensation. The complainants thereafter paid balance amount and took possession of the floor on 26.05.2017. The opposite party executed final conveyance deed in favour of the complainant on 23.05.2018. The complainants never put any further demand before the opposite party towards delay compensation after 10.02.2017. The complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

5.      The complainants have filed Rejoinder Reply, Affidavit of Evidence, Affidavit of Admission/Denial of documents of Subhash Chander Tandon and documentary evidence. The opposite party has filed Affidavit of Evidence of Shashank Bhushan and documentary evidence. Both the parties have filed written synopsis.

6.      We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. Admittedly, the opposite party offered possession, vide letter dated 04.10.2016, along with demand of Rs.1414729. The complainants have concealed the material fact that thereafter, they had claimed delay compensation and the opposite party paid/adjusted Rs.837699/- as delay compensation in the final demand, which was acknowledged by the complainants and they executed an undertaking on 10.02.2017 that they would not claim any further compensation. The complainants accepted delay compensation of Rs.837699/- without any protest. The complainants did not challenge the undertaking on any ground of fraud or coercion rather concealed this fact. Cause of action for delay compensation arose on 04.10.2016, when possession was offered and final statement of account was supplied to the complainants. The complaint was filed on 02.01.2019. Section-24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides two years limitation, which had expired on 03.10.2018. The complaint is time barred.

ORDER

ln view of aforesaid discussion complaint is dismissed.