Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Anup K Thakur, Presiding Member and C. Viswanath, Member
Arafat Ahmed Sheriff and Anr. —Complainants
versus
Aditya Construction Company
India Private Limited and Anr. —Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No.3 of 2015
Decided on 9.1.2019
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainants:Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties:Mr. Suyodhan Byrapaneni, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Undue delay in execution of Sale Agreement amounts to deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21—Real estate—Booking of residential flat—Delay in handing over possession of flat—Cancellation of allotment by OP—Total sale consideration of Flat booked by Complainant was Rs.91,18,000/-—If interest @18% per annum is added on amount paid by Complainant in 2011, it would cross Rs.1 crore which falls within Jurisdiction of this Commission—Opposite Party delayed execution of Sale Agreement and despite Complainant obtaining several letters of loan sanction, has not executed Tripartite Agreement with Bankers—Complainant has repeatedly reminded Opposite Party to close Agreements, but on one pretext or other, Opposite Party evaded finalizing Agreements—Complainant even offered to pay entire cost of flat but instead of accepting offer or executing Tripartite Agreement, Opposite Party chose to cancel Flat booking—This speaks of callousness and indifference on part of Opposite Party and amounts to deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice—OP directed to refund entire amount received from Complainant, along with compensation in form of 18% interest—Opposite Party shall also pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation to Complainant.
Held: Alleging deficiency on the part of Opposite Party, Complainant has filed a Complaint before this Commission under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
On merits, it is very clear from the above detailed correspondence, the Opposite Party delayed execution of the Sale Agreement and despite the Complainant obtaining several letters of loan sanction, has not executed the Tripartite Agreement with the Bankers. The Complainant has repeatedly reminded the Opposite Party to close the Agreements, but on one pretext or other as detailed above, the Opposite Party evaded finalizing the Agreements. The Complainant even offered to pay the entire cost of the flat vide email dated 23.09.2014 but instead of accepting the offer or executing the Tripartite Agreement, the Opposite Party chose to cancel the Flat booking. This speaks of the callousness and indifference on the part of the Opposite Party and amounts to deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice.
In the letter dated 29.09.2011 of the OP, there is a clear mention in para 7 of the terms and conditions, that in case of delay of making payments for the first 30 days, an interest @18% p.a. will be levied and delay beyond 30 days will attract an interest @24% p.a.The Complainant paid Rs.1 lakh as advance by cheque dated 28.09.2011 and Rs.12,67,000/- on 17.09.2011 totalling to Rs.13,67,000/-.He also paid Rs.1 lakh on 13.09.2014 towards execution of sale-agreement.Having received the money, the Opposite Party did not close the Tripartite Agreement on one pretext or the other as mentioned above.OP would have merrily utilized the money so deposited and denied the Complainant a flat, pushed him to litigation involving expenditure and causing mental harassment.
In view of the above, the Opposite Party is directed to refund the entire amount received from the Complainant, along with compensation in the form of interest @18% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of payment. The Opposite Party shall also pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation to the Complainant. The payment, in terms of this order, shall be made within six weeks from today. The Complaint stands disposed of accordingly. (Paras 2, 5, 6 and 7)
Result: Revision Petitions disposed of.
According to the Complainant, the Representatives of the Opposite Party approached the Complainant advertising their venture; a multi-floor residential apartments/Complex to be developed in the name and style of “Aditya Heights” at Sy. No. 37, Kothaguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal and Municipality, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana. The Complainant agreed to book one Flat on the pre-condition that the pre-EMI Interest on loan amount (80% of cost of flat) would be paid by Opposite Party till execution of the Sale Deed and handover the possession of the Flat. On payment of Rs.1,00,000/- by the Complainant to the Opposite Party, letter dated 29.09.2011 was issued, confirming the allotment of residential Flat bearing No. 302, located on 3rd floor, admeasuring 2380 sq.ft., along with space for 3 car parkings, in the residential complex being developed by the Opposite Party on the aforesaid land in the name and style “Aditya Heights”. The Complainant paid an amount of Rs.14,67,0000/- i.e. 15% of cost at the time of booking of the flat under Pre EMI scheme and Rs.1,00,000/- at the insistence of the Opposite Party to execute the Sale Agreement. Clause 3, 4 and 6 of the Allotment Letter dated 29.09.2011 states about the pre-EMI Scheme. Though the Complainant opted for Pre-EMI scheme, still the Opposite Party as an afterthought mentioned construction linked plan in the allotment letter. Upon objection of the Complainant, the Opposite Party clarified that the schedule is general and not applicable to the case of the Complainant. The Complainant relied upon the declarations of the Opposite Party and signed the same in good faith. The Opposite Party assured the Complainant to enter into Agreement of Sale within a week from the date of allotment i.e. on or before 07.10.2011. Further, the Opposite Party assured the Complainant to develop and complete the construction of the said Flat and entire complex within 24 months i.e. 2 years form the date of allotment i.e. on or before 31.10.2013, with a grace period of 3 months. Complainant visited the office of the Opposite Party and their project site office many times to execute the Agreement of Sale and Tripartite Agreement, but in vain. On one pretext or the other, the Opposite Party tried to delay the execution of the Agreement of Sale for the reasons best known to them. The Opposite Party, contrary to the terms of allotment, instructed the Complainant to arrange sanction letter for disbursement of loan on his own. It is worth mentioning that as per the terms of the Allotment letter dated 29.09.2011 and pre-launch advertisements, the Opposite Party assured to facilitate prospective buyers to obtain loan through the Bank approved by the Opposite Party. Finding no other alternative, the Complainant got sanctioned home loan from HDFC Limited, vide sanction letter dated 06.01.2012. The Complainant submitted the sanction letter to the Opposite Party and requested them to enter into Agreement of Sale and Tripartite Agreement, so that the sanctioned loan amount could be disbursed by the Bank to the Opposite Party. Instead of executing Agreement of Sale and Tripartite Agreement under Pre-EMI Scheme, the representatives of the Opposite Party started issuing stereotype letters showing the stage of construction and demanded payment of instalments, to which the Complainant stated that he did not opt for the construction-linked plan and hence the demand letters issued by Opposite Party were not applicable to him. The Opposite Party acknowledged the fact, but remained silent on the execution of Agreement of Sale. The Complainant submitted that though the sanction letter of bank loan was submitted a year back, the Opposite Party failed to execute the Agreement of Sale and his requests and reminders were not heeded by the Opposite Party. In the meantime, the time period of loan approval expired. On 16.11.2013, the Complainant submitted fresh loan approval from IDBI Bank for a loan of Rs.75,00,000/-. The
