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

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
Rajni Goyal —Complainant
versus
Supertech Limited —Opp. Party
Consumer Case No.708 of 2017
Decided on 7.2.2018

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Mr. Aswarya Sinha, Ms. Priyanka Sinha and Ms. Ajita Tandon, Advocates
For the Opp. Party:Mr. Shubham Agarwal, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
OP has not been able to prove that the construction of the flat was delayed on account of unforeseen circumstances.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Real Estate- Complainant booked a residential flat with the OP in a project namely ‘Capetown’ which the OP was to develop in Sector-74 of Noida- Complainant booked a residential flat with the OP in a project namely ‘Capetown’ which the OP was to develop in Sector-74 of Noida- OP shall pay compensation in the form of simple interest @ 8% per annum w.e.f. 01.11.2013 till the date on which the possession is actually offered in terms of this order- Complaint disposed of.

       Held: As noted earlier, the possession of the flat ought to have been delivered to the complainant by 31.10.2013. The OP did not even have occupancy certificate on that date. After obtaining the part occupancy certificate, the OP did not send any letter of possession to the complainant. The demand raised vide letter dated 12.10.2015 was at least partly un-justified. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to compensation on account of delay in delivery of possession of the flat allotted to her with effect from 01.11.2013 till the date on which the possession is actually offered to her.

       As far as the clause providing for extension of time upto six months on account of unforeseen circumstances is concerned, no evidence has been lead to proof that the OP was prevented from carrying construction of the flat at any point of time prior to 31.10.2013. The learned counsel for the OP submits that there was agitation by the farmers in Noida. However, there is no evidence of the farmers having actually disrupted the construction work on the site of this project, on or before 31.10.2013. Therefore, in my opinion, the OP has not been able to prove that the construction of the flat was delayed on account of unforeseen circumstances. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the OP, in my opinion, should pay compensation in the form of simple interest @ 8% per annum to the complainant with effect from 01.11.2013 till the date on which the possession is actually offered to her, in terms of this order.

       For the reasons stated hereinabove, the complaint is disposed of with the following directions:

       5. Within one month from today, the OP shall send a revised demand letter to the complainant alongwith documentary proof and computations in terms of this order.The learned counsel for the OP has demanded at least one month time for issuing such a letter.

       6. The aforesaid demand will be adjusted by the OP out of the compensation payable to the complainant in terms of this order.

       7. The OP shall pay compensation in the form of simple interest @ 8% per annum w.e.f. 01.11.2013 till the date on which the possession is actually offered in terms of this order.

       8. The possession of the flat having super area admeasuring 1625 sq. ft. in terms of this order, complete in all respects, shall be handed over to the complainant within two months from today.

       9. The OP shall also pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant. (Paras 11 and 12)

       Result: Complaint allowed.

       

ORDER (ORAL)

V.K. Jain, Presiding Member—The complainant booked a residential flat with the OP in a project namely ‘Capetown’ which the OP was to develop in Sector-74 of Noida. Flat No. 1606 in Tower CM4 of the aforesaid project was allotted to the complainant vide allotment letter dated 22.05.2012. The payment plan agreed between the parties reads as follows:

Installments

Inst. Date

%

Amount

At the time of booking

17.03.2012

0.00

605764.00

Within 60  days from booking

16.05.2012

0.00

2423055.00

On commencement of foundation work

17.05.2012

0.00

545188.00

Total

 

3574007.00

Installments

Inst. Date

%

Amount

On casting of basement roof slab

18.05.2012

0.00

711698.00

On casting of 4th floor roof slab

19.05.2012

0.00

711698.00

On casting of 8th floor roof slab

20.05.2012

0.00

711698.00

On casting of 12th floor roof slab

21.05.2012

0.00

711698.00

On offer of possession letter

31.10.2013

0.00

593881.00

Total

 

7014680.00

The possession of the flat was to be delivered to the complainant by October 2013. However, the said period could be extended subject to a maximum of six months, due to unforeseen circumstances. Thus, the possession of the flat ought to have been delivered to the complainant by 31.10.2013 unless the OP can show that the possession was delayed on account of circumstances which could not have been foreseen at the time of allotment.

2. Vide letter dated 12.10.2015, the OP required the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.12,35,656/- on or before 11.11.2015. The aforesaid letter was titled as ‘Possession Payment Demand Notice’ though admittedly, the OP did not possess the requisite occupancy certificate on the date it was issued. The occupancy certificate, according to the learned counsel for the OP, was obtained on 02.12.2015 and was a part occupancy certificate. The complainant did not pay the amount of Rs.12,35,656/- demanded vide letter dated 12.10.2015 and has approached this Commission by way of this consumer complaint with the following prayers:

i) Direct the Opp. Parties to hand over the possession of Flat at the original price indicated in the Allotment letter, to the Complainant herein immediately, in habitable condition, being complete in all respect, and execute all the required documents for transferring/ conveying the ownership right in his favour;

ii) Direct the opposite party to refund a sum of Rs.81,250/- paid as park facing charges along with intereest @ 18% from the date of payment of such charges till its actual realization.

iii) Direct the Opp. Parties to pay interest @ 24% compounded quarterly on the total amount paid by the complainant to the Opp. Parties towards the flat from October 2013 i.e. the expiry of the period as indicated in the terms and conditions (such period to be computed from the date of payment of the booking amount) until the actual physical possession of the apartment in terms of aforesaid prayers is handed over and the payment of amounts with interest.

iv) Direct the opposite party to refund the service charge and the car parking charge paid by the complainant.

v) Restrain the opposite party from charging escalation charge, Labour welfare, Water Connection & Advance Maintenance Charges & re-levied of Service Taxes plus interest on late payment.

vi) Restrain the opposite party from charging maintenance fee @ Rs. 2.50 per sq. ft. and service tax and direct the opposite party to charge maintenance charges in consultation and agreement with the allottees or the resident welfare association that may be formed of the duly elected member amongst the flat buyers and further direct that the maintenance service be provided by such agency as the allottees or resident welfare association may decide.

vii) Direct the Opp. Parties to pay compensation to the complainant for the delay in handing











































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
whatsapp-icon Back to top