Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member, Suresh Chandra, Member
EMAAR MGF Land Ltd. & Anr. —Appellants
versus
Dyal Singh —Respondent
First Appeal No.462 of 2014
(Against the Order dated 25/06/2014 in Complaint No. 43/2014 of the State Commission Chandigarh)
Decided on 3.7.2015
For the Appellants:Mr. Aditya Narain, Advocate with Mr. Arnav Narain and Mr. Shashank Bhushan, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Advocate with Mr. Arindam Ghose, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
No leniency should be shown to such type of litigants who in order to cover up their own fault and negligence, go on filing meritless appeal.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 17, 19 and 21—Real estate—Apartment Buyer’s Agreement—Non-delivery of possession by stipulated date—Appellants did not offer possession of apartment within prescribed period in terms of Clause 21 of Apartment Buyer’s Agreement—No explanation has been given by appellants as to why they did not offer possession of apartment by stipulated period though respondents had paid substantial amount—Appellants by not delivering the legal physical possession of apartment within prescribed period, are not only deficient in rendering service but are also guilty of indulging into unfair trade practice—Such type of unscrupulous act on part of appellants/builders should be dealt with heavy hands who after grabbing the money from purchasers, enjoy and utilize their money but does not hand over the possession, on one pretext or other—Appeals dismissed with punitive damages of Rs.5,00,000/-. (Paras 16, 18 and 23)
Result : Appeals dismissed with punitive damages.
As facts in above appeals are similar and common question of law is involved, hence, these appeals are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Above appeals have been filed by the Appellant/Opposite Parties against impugned order dated 25.6.2014, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh UT (for short, ‘State Commission’) in Consumer Complaints No.43 and 44 of 2014 filed by Complainants/Respondents Shri Dyal Singh and Shri Gurdev Singh Badial, respectively. Case of Dyal Singh is taken as the lead case.
3. Brief facts are, that Dyal Singh is residing in United Kingdom, where he had set up his own family business. Since, both sons of the respondent joined his business, and they emerged as successful entrepreneurs, he voluntarily took retirement from his business in the year 2011. The respondent had been frequently visiting India, especially Punjab Region, where he has a number of family relatives and friends, who are based in and around Chandigarh, Mohali, Jalandhar and Delhi. In order to live his post retirement life, respondent looked for buying a residential house, in the tricity. In the meantime, respondent came to know that the Appellants had launched their exclusively designed project, under the name and style of “Mohali Hills”, which consisted of residential plots, flats, town house etc. etc., which were to be allotted, on first-cum-first-serve-basis. In their advertisements, published in various newspapers, the appellants had assured with regard to the commencement of construction and timely completion of the project aforesaid. Allured by such advertisements, and assurances, respondent applied for a residential apartment, to the appellants, in the said project, vide application dated 15.04.2008 for the purpose of his residence and self occupation. Alongwith the said application, an amount of Rs.7 lacs, vide cheque No.152970 was also deposited by the respondent. In response to the said application, respondent was allotted Unit/Apartment no.J1-F09-902, measuring 1550 square feet, alongwith one car parking space, in “The Views”, Mohali Hills, Sector 105, S.A.S. Nagar, District Mohali, Punjab, vide allotment letter dated 23.05.2008. The price of the said unit was Rs.48,65,580.50Ps., which included Rs.1.50 lacs, towards per car parking, External Development Charges @Rs.112.31Ps. per square feet, and Interest Free Maintenance Charges (IFMC) @Rs.10/- per square feet. Apartment Buyer’s Agreement, was executed between the parties, on 17.06.2008, at Chandigarh. The respondent opted for installment payment plan, in respect of the said apartment. Thereafter, respondent had been diligently making payment of installments, as per the payment plan/schedule.
4. It was further stated that from 15.04.2008 till 03.07.2013, an amount of Rs.46,52,377/- through cheques as well as RTGS, had been paid by the respondent. Apart from that, respondent had also paid an amount of Rs.1,15,975/-, towards interest, on delayed payments of installments, in relation to the said apartment. It was further stated that according to Clause 21.1 of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement dated 17.06.2008, the appellants were to handover physical possession of the residential apartment, in favour of the respondent, within a period of three years, from the date of allotment (23.05.2008), with further grace period of three months (90 days), for obtaining the Occupation Certification from the Competent Authorities. Thus, appellants were to deliver possession of the residential apartment, on or before 23.05.2011, or with grace period of 90 days, at the latest by 23.08.2011. However, the possession was not offered to the respondent, by the stipulated date. It was further stated that, in case of delay in handing over possession of the apartment, the appellants as per Clause 23.1 of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement dated 17.06.2008, were liable to pay compensation @Rs.5/- per sq. ft. (Rupees Five only), per month of the super area, for the period of
