SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member, Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member
DLF Universal Ltd. —Petitioner
versus
Nirmala Devi Gupta —Respondent
Revision Petition No.3861 of 2014
Decided on 26.8.2015

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Aditya Narain, Mr. Aakarshan Sahay, Mr. Saurabh Kumar, Ms. Devna Arora and Mr. Arnav Narain, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Mukand Gupta, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
Plot-buyers’ agreement stood cancelled and allottee shall not have any right on property, OP cannot deduct sum as non-refundable from money deposited by complainant.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2 (1) (d) — Consumer — Complainant not engaged in business of purchasing and selling houses and/or plots on regular basis — Solely with view to make profit by sale of properties — HELD — Booking of plot not for commercial purpose and hence complainant does fall within definition of ‘consumer’. [Para 8]

       (ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 14, 15, 17 & 23 — Consumer — Complainant not engaged in business of purchasing and selling houses and/or plots on regular basis — Solely with view to make profit by sale of properties — HELD — Plot-buyers’ agreement if executed stood cancelled and allottee shall not have any lien or right on property — OP cannot deduct a sum of as non-refundable amount from money deposited by complainant. [Para 11]

       Result: Petition disposed of.

       

ORDER

The complainant, Nirmala Devi Gupta filed consumer complaint No. 50/2014 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission), saying that she applied for allotment of a plot measuring 350 sq. yds. In the Project “Hyde Park” New Chandigarh, Mullanpur Planning Area, proposed to be developed by the opposite party, DLF Universal Limited (hereinafter referred to as OP). She was provisionally allotted plot No. HPE-R1-F204, measuring 292.64 sq. mtr./350 sq. yrd. at a price of Rs.30,498 per sq. mtr. vide letter dated 31.3.2011 from the OP. The said letter enclosed therewith a two-year payment plan for deposit of the price of the said plot and a set of terms and conditions duly signed by the parties. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs.12 lakh as booking amount for the said plot on 31.3.2011. The total price of the plot was indicated as Rs.1,05,60,207.03 ps. An amount of 25% of the total price of the plot minus the booking amount and 25% of the External Development Charges (EDC) were payable within 2 months of booking. The next seven instalments of 10% of the total price and 10% of EDC were payable with intervals of two to three months each, making it a total of 95%. The balance 5% of the total price, 5% of EDC, registration, stamp duty charges etc. were payable on offer of possession. As indicated in the terms and conditions attached with the offer letter, 15% of the total price of the plot was stated to be the earnest money. It was also indicated that the company shall endeavour to offer possession of the said plot within 24 months from the date of execution of the agreement or within any extended period. One of the conditions also stated that the company was entitled to forfeit the earnest money and the non-refundable amount and cancel the allotment in case of breach of terms and conditions. As per the complainant, she deposited a sum of Rs.9,87,453 with the OP on 25.6.2011 and another sum of Rs.3,96,302 on 30.6.2011. In this way, a total sum of Rs.25,83,755 was paid by the complainant including the booking amount. The complainant did not make any further payment as per the payment plan despite the demand raised by the OP through their letters/communications, taking the plea that the OP had failed to make any development on the said mega housing project and hence, failed to honour the commitment of giving them plot within two years of the date of agreement.

2. A ‘Plot-buyers Agreement’ was executed between the parties on 14.5.2012, in accordance with which, the sale price of the plot was indicated as Rs.89,24,934.71ps. A sum of Rs.9,80,051.39ps. was also payable as Preferential Local Charges (PLC), thus making the total value of the plot as Rs.99,04,986.10ps. The entire payment was to be made within a period of 2 years. The amount of external development charges was mentioned as Rs.4,80,222.21ps.and maintenance security was indicated as Rs.1,74,998.72ps.

3. The OP cancelled the allotment of the plot vide letter dated 23.5.2012 on the ground that the overdue payments were not made by the complainant despite communications sent by it. It was stated in this letter that a total amount of Rs.19,23,260.50ps. stood forfeited, consisting of earnest money amounting to Rs.15,57,781.25ps. and interest on delayed payment as Rs.3,65,479.25ps. The balance amount refundable was stated to be Rs.6,60,494.50ps. It was also stated that the buyers’ agreement if executed, stood cancelled and the allottee had no lien or right, whatsoever on the said property.

4. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question before the State Commission alleging that the OP failed to take requisite permissions from the concerned authorities before launching the Project. She sought directions to the OP to refund the deposited amount of Rs.25,83,755 alongwith interest 12% p.a. from the date of deposit till realisation. It was also prayed that a sum of Rs.25,000 as compensation for mental ha














Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top