Back
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Honble Mr. Justice A.P. Chowdhri, President;
Ms. S. Brar & Mr. Desh Bandhu, Members
RAJIV MALHOTRA—Appellant
versus
RAJ CHOPRA & ORS.—Respondents
Case No. C-12 of 1991 — Decided on 19.9.1996
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant: In person.
For the Respondent No. 1:Mr. Mukesh Nirwani, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2:Mr. Chander Shekharan, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2:Mr. Rohit Agarwal, Advocate.
The pricing of plot/house and flat is not a matter which falls within the purview of Consumer Redressal Forum.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - PRICING OF PLOT/HOUSE AND FLAT - NOT WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM - ALLOTTEES NOT ENTITLED TO ANY INTEREST ON THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT PAID TO THE BUILDERS - BUILDERS ABANDONED THE PROJECT - ALLOTTEES ENTITLED TO REFUND OF THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT - LIABILITY TAKEN OVER BY OPPOSITE PARTY 3 ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER - NO RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED TO THE COMPLAINANTS ON THE BASIS OF ORIGINAL ALLOTMENT LETTER EXECUTED BY THE THEN BUILDERS - COMPLAINANTS HAVE NOT COME BEFORE THIS COMMISSION WITH CLEAN HANDS - COMPLAINANTS DID NOT ACCEPT EITHER OF THE OFFERS MADE BY OPPOSITE PARTY 3 - COMPLAINANTS HAVE NO CASE IN RESPECT OF THE FLATS EXCEPT FOR THE REFUND OF THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT WHICH OPPOSITE PARTY 3 HAS AGREED TO REFUND.
Fact of the Case:
Complainants entered into agreements with builders for the allotment of residential flats in a proposed multi-storyed building. Builders were empowered to sell "space" on ownership basis in the proposed building. Builders failed to commence construction within the agreed time and earned interest on the payments made by the complainants. Complainants learned that the project had been taken over by opposite party 3 from the builders and that they had entered into a second agreement with the owner of the plot. Complainants were not formally informed by any of the opposite parties. Complainants claimed interest for 11 years on the amount collected by the opposite parties and sought allotment of the agreed covered area and not the super area.
Finding of the Court:
The complaints are maintainable as they are based on the plea that the opposite parties are guilty of deficiency in service. However, the plea of opposite party 3 that in the present complaints, the complainants are disputing the price of the flats fixed by opposite party 3 and that this is not a consumer dispute, has force. The complainants are not entitled to any interest on the principal amount paid to the then builders as per the terms of the agreement executed by the buyers/allottees of the flats. The complainants are only entitled to refund of the principal amount and that liability has been taken over by opposite party 3 on behalf of the owner. No relief can be granted to the complainants on the basis of original allotment letter executed by the then builders as the owner of the plot has not been made a party to the present proceedings. The complainants have not come before this Commission with clean hands as they were members of an Association that was taking keen part in the litigations, execution of agreement and different memorandums of understanding executed between the then builders, owner of land and opposite party 3. The complainants did not accept either of the offers made by opposite party 3 and have no case in respect of the flats except for the refund of the principal amount which opposite party 3 has agreed to refund.
Issues: Whether the complaints are maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? Whether the complainants are entitled to any interest on the principal amount paid to the then builders? Whether the complainants are entitled to any relief in respect of the flats booked by them with M/s. Competent Builders?
Ratio Decidendi: The pricing of plot/house and flat is not a matter which falls within the purview of Consumer Redressal Forum. The complainants are not entitled to any interest on the principal amount paid to the then builders as per the terms of the agreement executed by the buyers/allottees of the flats. The complainants are only entitled to refund of the principal amount and that liability has been taken over by opposite party 3 on behalf of the owner. No relief can be granted to the complainants on the basis of original allotment letter executed by the then builders as the owner of the plot has not been made a party to the present proceedings. The complainants have not come before this Commission with clean hands as they were members of an Association that was taking keen part in the litigations, execution of agreement and different memorandums of understanding executed between the then builders, owner of land and opposite party 3. The complainants did not accept either of the offers made by opposite party 3 and have no case in respect of the flats except for the refund of the principal amount which opposite party 3 has agreed to refund.
Final Decision: The complaints are disposed of. Opposite party 3, Ansals, is directed to pay Rs. 1,27,000/- to Rajiv Malhotra complainant of Case No. C-12 of 1991 and Rs. 94,375/- to complainants of Case No. C-30 of l991. These amounts shall be paid to the complainants within one month of the receipt of a copy of this order, failing which these amounts will carry interest from the date of order at the rate of 18% p.a. till payment. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs in both the cases.
Mr. Justice A.P. Chowdhri, President — This order will dispose of both the above titled complaints as questions of facts and law raised are identical. The facts, as gathered from the records, are that Smt. Satyawati Dhawan is the owner of plot No. 6, Jantar Mantar Road, New Delhi. She entered into an agreement with M/s. Competent Builders, hereinafter referred to as the Builders. By virtue of the said agreement and the Power of Attorney, the builders were empowered to sell "space" on ownership basis in the proposed mult-storyed building which the builders were to construct on the said plot. It may be mentioned here that the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 herein are partners of the said builder's firm. Rajiv Malhotra (complainant in Complaint Case No. C-12 of 1991) entered into an agreement on 10.9.79 with the builders for the allotment of residential flat No. 203 on second floor. As per allotment letter, Rajiv Malhotra was allotted covered area of 1700 sq.ft. at the rate of Rs. 245/- per square ft. According to the complainant there was no clause about escalation in price in the allotment letter and the area to be worked out was in terms of covered area and not 'super area'.
2. The builders were supposed to build the flats within two years of the sanction of the plans by the prescribed authorities. As per Clause 4 of the allotment letter 20% of the agreed amount, i.e. Rs. 75.000/-, was paid by Rajiv Malhotra to the builder's firm and Rs. 52,000/- was paid to them as per their letter dated 2.12.81, intimating that the plans have been sanctioned. Upto the date of filing of the complaint, the builders had not commenced construction and thus, the latter earned interest on the payments made by the complainant.
3. It was further the case of Rajiv Malhotra that he learnt through the letters dated 14.8.90 and 14.11.90 of Sh. H.D. Shourie and of opposite party No. 3 M/s. Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd., that the project had been taken over by the opposite party No. 3 from the builders and that they had entered into a second agreement with the owner of the plot. Complainant Rajiv Malhotra has not been formally informed by either of the opposite parties. He has visited the office of all the opposite parties several times to confirm about the fact but none of them was ready to show the said agreement. The complainant, Rajiv Malhotra, had also come to know from the letter dated 14.8.90 of Sh. H.D. Shourie that opposite party No. 3 is demanding Rs. 350/- per square ft. and that too on the basis of super area, though according to the original agreement the said complainant was liable to pay only @ Rs. 245/-per sq. ft. for "covered area". As per letter dated 25.8.90, the opposite party No. 3 was prepared to give credit of the amount paid by the complainant i.e., Rs. 1,27,500/-but it was not giving any credit of Rs. 6,02,245/- earned by the original builders as interest from the period September 1979 till date of complaint. The complainant also quoted the rates of construction of CPWD prevailing in the year 1979 and those current on the date of the complaint. The complainant further alleged that as per current rates of CPWD, the present cost of the flat came to Rs. 10,12,095/- and that he was prepared to pay that amount provided adjustment is given for the amount of Rs. 1,27,500 /- paid by him as principal amount plus Rs. 6,02,245 /- on account of interest earned by the original builders. His further contention was that he was entitled to "covered area" as distinguished from super area in terms of the original agreement. He, therefore, prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay interest for 11 years on the amount collected by them and give credit for the same and allot the agreed covered area and not the super area and charge Rs. 595.35 per square ft. as per extent CPWD rates.
4. In complaint Case No. C. 30 of 1991 filed by Sh. V.P. Kapoor and his wife Smt. Raj Rani Kapoor, the complainants had entered into an agreement with the buil
