Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member and Mrs. Rekha Gupta, Member
M/s Vora Land Developers through Mr. Shailesh P. Vora, Partner —Petitioner
versus
Mr. Jayantilal Hirji —Respondent
Revision Petition No. 1596 of 2012
(From order dated 20.12.2011 in First Appeals No.1317 of 2010 and 548 of 2011 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai)
Decided on 16.12.2013
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Subodh Gokhale, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Unscrupulous Builders who after taking substantial cost of building do not perform their part of obligation, should not be spared.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Real estate—Flat—Delay in delivery of possession—Complaint allowed by Fora below—Despite three notices served by Complainant, followed by a legal notice, Opposite Party had not shown any courtesy to give reply to any of notices—Only after present complaint came to be filed, Opposite Party came out with a defence that because of certain actions taken by competent authorities project could not be completed and regularized—There is no substance in stand taken by Opposite Party that factors beyond its control led to non-completion of project—Complainant might be expecting possession of flat within a reasonable period of two years which is a reasonable expectation of every flat-purchaser—Loss caused by Opposite Party to Complainant, by this fraudulent conduct, is enormous and Opposite Party has hit a middleclass person like Complainant very badly—Petitioner from date of execution of agreement, had malafide intention to grab hard earned money of respondent—Opposite Party directed to pay to Complainant, compensation equivalent to flat value of Complainant i..e. amount of Rs.10,62,000/-—Both Fora below have given finding of facts that petitioner had acted in a fraudulent manner in this case—No reason to disagree with findings of facts given by both Fora below—Revision petition dismissed with cost of Rs.50,000/-. (Paras 14, 17, 22 to 25)
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member— Petitioner/O.P. being aggrieved by order dated 20.12.2011 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai (for short, ‘State Commission’) has filed the present revision petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (for short, ‘Act’).
2. Respondent/Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai (for short, ‘Consumer Forum’)on the allegations that Petitioner-firm who is Builder/Developer decided to construct buildings and respondent agreed to purchase a flat admeasuring about 885 Sq. Ft. in built-up area in the Scheme-‘Highland Project’, for an agreed consideration of Rs.10,62,000/-The Petitioner executed a registered agreement for sale to that effect in favour of the respondent on 8.10.2001. Respondent paid booking amount of Rs.10,000/-.Thereafter, paid an amount of Rs.3,83,114/-in cash for which Petitioner issued a receipt in writing. Possession of the flat was agreed to be delivered to the respondent as early as possible. It is alleged that the construction work was stopped by the petitioner and there has been no progress of construction on account of which, there has been delay in delivery of possession of the flat by the petitioner to the respondent. It is further alleged that respondent sent three letters to the petitioner reminding it of the agreement regarding the flat and called upon it to complete the construction and put him in possession, but in vain. Thereafter, respondent sent a legal notice dated 10.5.2007 to the petitioner and when that notice was also not complied with, respondent filed a complaint before the Consumer Forum seeking direction against the petitioner, to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the flat in question besides payment of compensation in sum of Rs.1,00,000/- or in the alternative to direct the petitioner to pay the cost of the flat, that is, Rs.10,62,000/- together with interest @ 24% p.a., on the amount in sum of Rs.3,93,114/-, which was received by the petitioner from the respondent towards part-consideration for the said flat.
3. Petitioner in its written version stated that the construction of the project-‘Highland Park’ was undertaken by it but in the midst of construction, ‘Stop Work Notice’ dated 19.09.2002 was issued by the Municipal authorities, on account of which the construction activity was stopped. Then, a notice under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1966 was issued by the competent authorities on 23.09.2002, asking the petitioner to demolish all the floors above the first floor. It is stated that in the year 2003, one Mr. Rajendra Thakkar, alongwith other citizens, filed a Public Interest Litigation bearing Writ Petition No. 379 of 2003 before Bombay High Court against Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, on the issue of permission being granted to the builders for additional FSI. In that public interest litigation, Mr.J. S. Sane, Chief Engineer, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai; filed his affidavit and annexed to his affidavit was a list of projects and ‘Highland Project’ came to be included in that list. Thus, present project became subject matter of that public interest litigation. Thereafter, Bombay High Court passed an order on 5.5.2004, asking the Municipal Commissioner to consider the regularization of the buildings subject to the satisfaction of the provisions contained in the Development Control Regulations. Thus, according to the petitioner, unless the FSI is regularized, the work of the said project cannot be completed. Thus, petitioner has denied allegations that it is guilty of deficiency in service and has denied the allegations as regards its liability to pay compensation to the respondent.
4. Consumer Forum, vide order dated 7.10.2010 allowed the complaint and passed the following directions;
“[2] The office of this Forum is hereby directed to release in favour of the Complainant, an amount in sum
