Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member
Nalin Bhargava & Ors. —Appellants
versus
Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr. —Respondents
First Appeal Nos.241 to 243, 246 to 250, 255 to 259 & 317 of 2015
Decided on 20.1.2016
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Shri M.L. Lahoty, Advocate with except in FA/317/2015 Shri Paban K. Sharma, Advocate
For the Appellants:Ms. Ruchira Goel, Advocate
For the Respondents In F.A.No.317 of 2015:Shri Rahul Malhotra, Advocate with Ms. Minakshi Jyoti, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Terms and conditions of agreement are binding on parties to it.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 17, 19 and 21—Real estate—Flat Buyer Agreement—Denial of possession of flats—State Commission allowed complaints and directed opposite parties to hand over possession of flats to complainants in year 2015—Opposite parties were further directed to issue statement of accounts to each complainant on their demand and to pay 9% interest on amount received in excess—Complainants have signed agreement with their open eyes and never raised any objection for deleting or modifying terms and conditions of agreement and have not pleaded that duress/coercion or undue influence was exercised by opposite party on complainants for executing agreements—There is nothing on record to suggest that agreements were not executed by complainants with free will and in such circumstances, it cannot be held that opposite party was stronger or in bargaining capacity to compel complainants to enter into purchase agreements—Order passed by State Commission modified. (Paras 9 to 17)
Result: Appeals Partly allowed.
K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member—These appeals arise out of single order of State Commission, hence, decided by common order.
2. These appeals have been filed appellant against order dated 25.2.2015 in Complainant Nos. 18 of 2013- Nalin Bhargava & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 34 of 2013- Jasleen Viswanathan & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr; 58 of 2011- Janmejai Mani Tiwari Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr; 68 of 2013- Indu Singh Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 69 of 2013- Poonam Sagar Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 86 of 2010- Priyanka Mittal & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 101 of 2011- Mohd. Aslam Khan & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 130 of 2012- Dr. Sunil Kr. Singh & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr; 49 of 2012- Neera Mittal & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr; 74 of 2011- Deepak Bhalla Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr. ; 87 of 2010- Syed Gufran Ali Alvi & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 96 of 2011- Uppasana Malik Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 175 of 20130- Umesh Chandra Dixit & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 97 of 2011- Pravin Kumar Goel & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr; by which complaints were partly allowed.
3. Brief facts of the cases are that opposite parties/respondents are engaged in the activity of housing construction and accordingly they have launched a project named as “Parsvnath Planet” situated in Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. The project was demonstrated to be very lucrative and made attractive to the vendees, in order to procure/collect money from the needy persons demonstrating themselves to be excellence in the field of construction activity as compared to other builders and assured the buyers/complainants that it has been duly approved by the Lucknow Development Authority and necessary permission has also been obtained from them. The emphasis was made by the opposite parties that the possession of the Unit shall be given within a scheduled period of 36+6=42 months stipulated in agreements executed in between the parties for the project launched in the year 2006. The complainants/appellants attracted by the promise and assurance of the opposite parties, somehow managed and arranged the money from their personal sources as well as on loan at attractive rate of interest and the hard earned money was paid by them to the opposite parties in a hope that the possession of the units shall be provided to them in the year 2009 and they can leave peacefully in their own houses, since the complainants are living in rented houses. The complainants visited the construction site of the opposite parties after depositing the entire amount, where it was revealed that the construction activities were on halt and the persons available on the site told the complainants that the apartments are likely to be completed till 2015. Even the partial construction done by the opposite parties was defective and did not match the specifications provided in the agreement. The complainants were shocked on hearing it and observing the site. The complainants immediately contacted the Area Manager, who told the complainants that there is some delay in the construction of the apartment and the apartments shall be ready till June, 2010. The complainants have to repay the amount taken on loan alongwith interest without getting the possession of the allotted units causing irreparable loss and injury to them. The complainants have come to know that the opposite parties have invested the funds earmarked for this project into their other projects in other city due to which they have not been able to complete the project in time. Besides this, it has also come to the light that although the opposite parties had collected huge funds from the buyers but in spite of that the opposite parties have miserably failed to pay the dues of Lucknow Development Authority which forced the Lucknow Development Authority to issue coercive measur
