Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
Sanjay Kumar Chowdhary —Complainant
versus
Super Tech Limited —Opp. Party
Consumer Case No.40 of 2017
Decided on 1.3.2018
For the Complainant: In person
For the Opp. Party:Ms. Preetika Dwivedi and Mr. Gyan Prakash Tiwari, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
Opposite party has to justify delay in offering possession of flat allotted to complainant.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21— Real estate—Booking of residential flat—Denial of possession despite sizeable payment—Complainant has claimed compensation in form of simple interest @ 18% per annum—If compensation in form of simple interest @ 18% per annum from date of each payment is added to agreed sale consideration, aggregate come to much more than Rs.1.00 crores—National Commission does possess requisite jurisdiction to entertain complaint. (Para 3)
(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21—Real estate—Booking of residential flat—Denial of possession despite sizeable payment—If opposite party had commenced construction of project in question without obtaining requisite environmental clearance or construction was in contravention of environmental clearance, it has only itself to blame for construction being stopped by National Green Tribunal—Opposite party has failed to justify delay in offering possession of flat allotted to complainant—OP shall deliver possession of flat allotted to complainant, complete in all respects—OP shall pay compensation in form of simple interest @ 8% per annum to complainant with effect from date when letter offering possession of flat was actually filed before National Commission—Opposite party shall pay sum of Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation to complainant. (Paras 6 to 10)
Result: Complaint allowed.
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member—The complainant Sanjay Kumar Chowdhary and his wife Sangeeta Chowdhary booked a residential flat in a project namely ‘Capetown’ which the opposite party is developing in Sector 74 of Noida. Vide allotment letter dated 13.9.2011, Unit No.10201 (R 026 CGD 10201 Flat No. 0201 in Block CGD1 having super area of 1945 sq. ft. was allotted to them for a consideration of Rs.66,33,819/-. In terms of the aforesaid allotment letter, the possession was to be delivered by the opposite party to the complainant in February, 2014 though, the said period could be extended upto six months due to unforeseen circumstances. The grievance of the complainant is that the possession of the flat has not been delivered to him despite they having already paid Rs.63,29,596/- to the opposite party. The complainant is therefore before this Commission, seeking refund of the amount paid by them along with compensation in the form of interest etc.
2. The complaint has been resisted by the opposite party which has admitted the allotment made to the complainants but has disputed the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. On merits, it is stated that the possession of the flat in the tower in which the unit of the complainant is booked has already commenced. It is also claimed that in the event of delay, compensation @ Rs.5/- per sq. ft. is payable to the complainant in terms of Clause 19 of the allotment letter. It is also claimed that in the present case delay was caused due to unavailability of cement, sand and water in the year 2013 and there was shortage of labour during the relevant period. It is also alleged in para-8 of the written version that the complainant was informed vide Email dated 24.9.2016 that the possession was expected to be handed over in the last quarter of 2016.
3. As far as pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission is concerned, in terms of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, this Commission possesses the requisite jurisdiction where the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed along with compensation, if any, claimed by the complainant exceeds Rs.1.00 crores. As held by a Three-Members Bench of this Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. CC No. 97 of 2016, decided on 07.10.2016, the value of the services in such cases means the sale consideration agreed to be paid by the flat buyer to the builder. In the present case, the agreed sale consideration was more than Rs.66.00 lacs. The complainant has claimed compensation in the form of simple interest @ 18% per annum. If compensation in the form of simple interest @ 18% per annum from the date of each payment is added to the agreed sale consideration, the aggregate come to much more than Rs.1.00 crores. Therefore, this Commission does possess the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
4. Coming to the merits of the case, it is not in dispute that in terms of the allotment letter issued by the opposite party, the possession of the flat was to be delivered by February, 2014. The learned counsel for the opposite party submits that they have obtained the requisite occupancy certificate in respect of the tower in which the flat allotted to the complainant is situated, way back on 02.12.2015. However, no letter soon after December, 2015 was sent to the complainant offering possession of the flat allotted to him. In fact, the opposite party itself has stated in its written version that vide Email dated 24.9.2016, it had informed the complainant that the possession was expected to be handed over in the last quarter of 2016. The aforesaid statement contained in the written version of the opposite party clearly shows that despite the opposite party having obtained the requisite occupancy certificate, the construction of the flat was not complete at that time and that is why the opposite party had informed the complainant that the possession was expected to be handed over in the last quar
