Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
Nandita Ray —Complainant
versus
Maytas Hill Country Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. —Opp.Parties
Consumer Case No.197 of 2010
Decided on 3.11.2015
For the Complainant:Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Somesh Kumar Dubey, Ms. Nayan Chauhan, Mr. Sahil Narang, Advocates
For the Opp.Parties:Mr. Raghenth Basant, Mr. Hardeep Singh, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
No evidence or allegation of appreciation to extent of more than 18% per annum in market value of similarly situated flats, OP directed to refund sum alongwith simple interest @ 12 % per annum.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(g), 12 & 17 — Deficiency in service — Flat booked — Completion certificate not obtained by opposite party and apartment could not be transferred — Even without obtaining completion certificate and certificate of occupation from local authorities — HELD — Commission upheld order of State Commission for refund of amount paid by complainant — Alongwith interest on that amount @ 12% per annum with compensation quantified at Rs.100000 and cost of litigation quantified Rs.10000 to each complainant. (Para 10)
Result: Complaint allowed.
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member—The complainant booked a residential flat measuring 2,158 sq. feet with the opposite party and entered into an agreement of sale dated 16.10.2006. As per the agreement, the construction of the flat was to be completed by 31.8.2008 or 24 months from the date of the agreement, whichever be later. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,00,48,984 to the opposite party, out of the total agreed sale consideration of Rs.1,02,64,545. Since the construction of the flat was nowhere nearing completion, the complainant served a legal notice dated 20.7.2010 upon the opposite party, seeking delivery of possession of the flat purchased by her or in the alternative refund of the amount paid by her alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. The opposite parties responded to the notice, but did not offer possession of the flat booked by the complainant. The amount paid by her was also not refunded. Being aggrieved, she has filed this complaint seeking refund of Rs.1,00,48,984 alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and damages quantified at Rs. 25,000.
2. In their reply, the opposite parties have admitted the agreement with the complainant as well as receipt of Rs.1,00,48,984 from her. The complaint has been resisted inter-alia on the ground that there was a wrong perception of the opposite parties being associated with one Mr.B.Ramalinga Raju who was arrested and prosecuted by the State. Investigations against Mr. B. Ramalinga Raju drew attention of the electronic and press media as a result of which, private investors and financial institutions who had committed funding the project, withdrew from the said project, thereby causing acute shortage of funds. It is also alleged in the reply that various attachments and court orders have also delayed the project which is in the final stage of completion. It is also pointed out in the reply that one Mr. Ved Jain was appointed by Company Law Board as a nominee Director. Later, Company Law Board inducted M/s. Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd., M/s. IL&FS Financial Services Ltd. and M/s. IL&FS Engineering and Construction Company Limited as major shareholders in the company and new management took steps to inject funds into the company which then started paying off its liabilities.
3. A perusal of the agreement for sale dated 16.10.2006 would show that it was executed between certain companies described as land owners, the opposite party Maytas Hill County Private Limited described as the Developer and the complainant described as the purchaser. However, the land owners executed the agreement through none other than Maytas Hill County Private Limited, which was stated to be their GPA holder.
4. Clause 7 of the agreement between the parties, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:
(a) The developer and land owner assures to complete the construction of the scheduled apartment by 31st August, 2008 or 24 months from the date of execution of this agreement whichever is later, as corrected to any time overrun consequent upon actions arising out of recital 6 and subject to the availability of steel or other construction material and any other causes beyond the control of the developer.
(b) Provided that the developer shall have a further grace period of three (3) months.
(c) The developer shall be entitled to further periods if the construction is delayed due to natural calamities like floods, war, earthquake, fire or stay of construction by any court or authority or any other emergencies including riots and any terrorist activities, which are beyond the normal control of the first party.
(d) In the event of any further delay beyond the time stipulated in Clause 7(a), 7(b) and 7(c), the developer and the land owner shall pay the purchaser an amount of Rs.5 per sq. ft. of contracted built-up area for every month of delay upto a maximum of 8 months. This amount shall be adjusted out of the amount still due and receivable from the purchaser(s) or if the purchaser(s) has pa
