Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Ashok Bhan, President and B.K. Taimni, Member
AMLA LAL - Appellant
Versus
ANSAL PROPERTIES AND INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND ANR. - Respondents
First Appeal No. 111 of 2005 from Order dated 11.1.2005 in Complaint Case No. C-123 of 1994 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi
Decided on : 14-01-2010
Mr. S.N. Suri, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Arvind Nayar, Advocate, for the Respondent
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to complete construction within the stipulated period constitutes deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, entitling the consumer to compensation.
Headnote:
Consumer Dispute - Real Estate - [Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r)] - The court discussed the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, particularly Section 2(1)(g) defining 'complainant', Section 2(1)(o) defining 'consumer', and Section 2(1)(r) defining 'service'. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these provisions in determining the rights and liabilities of the parties under the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant/complainant approached the respondents for the allotment of a residential flat based on an advertisement and brochure. Despite making payments, the construction of the flat was not completed within the stipulated period, leading to the appellant filing a complaint seeking relief.
Finding of the Court:
The State Commission partly allowed the complaint, considering the lapse on the part of the respondents in completing the construction within the agreed period as deficiency in service, and awarded a lump sum compensation to the appellant.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the completion of construction within the agreed period and the rights of the appellant as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the failure to complete construction within the stipulated period amounted to deficiency in service, warranting compensation for the appellant.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and no orders as to costs were made.
ORDER
Ashok Bhan, President - Appellant herein, who was the complainant before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission for short), has filed this appeal against Order dated 11.1.2005 passed by the State Commission in Complaint Case No. C-123 of 1994 whereby the State Commission has partly allowed the complaint.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are:
Appellant/ complainant on the basis of the advertisement and brochure published by respondent No. l (hereinafter referred to as R-l for short) for residential flats in Sushant Apartments, on 6.6.1990, approached respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as R-2 for short) for allotment of the said flat and deposited Rs. 33,000 towards initial cost of construction/booking amount. She further paid an amount, of Rs. 12,500 as premium as demanded by R-2. Appellant was allotted flat No. A-3002 in the above said apartments. It is stated that till 7.7.1993, appellant paid Rs. 3,75,334.75 towards the said flat. On 9.8.1993, R-1 informed the appellant that the blocks to accommodate 122 allottees were nearing completion and two more blocks were being constructed and few more facilities were being provided but on reaching the site, appellant did not find any track of construction on the site and, on 21.8.1993, appellant wrote to the respondents protesting against the heavy demand of external developmental charges in spite of there being no construction of the flats. Even the sector road was not constructed. That on 24.2.1993, respondents raised another demand of Rs. 58,068. As for three years from the date of allotment, the flat allotted to the appellant was neither constructed nor any facilities mentioned in the brochure were made available, the appellant filed a complaint before the State Commission seeking following reliefs:
"(a) direct the respondents to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 15,88,642.35 along with interest at the rate of 24% on the said amount till the date of realization;
(b) pass any other order/orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. During the pendency of the complaint, appellant sought refund of the amount deposited by her. Respondent, in pursuance to the request made, refunded Rs. 3,62,830 to the appellant on 23.10.1995 and cancelled the allotment.
4. Respondent resisted the claim alleging that as per the demand plan, i.e., Plan C , which the appellant had opted, the cost of flat which was allotted to the appellant was Rs. 6,29,475 and that is for 6 years. That as per the Plan 9% of the above-said amount was payable at the time of making payment for earnest money and 48% was payable in 12 quarterly installments of 4% each starting from 15.7.1996. That 36% of the above said amount was to be paid in 12 quarterly instalments of 3% each with interest @ 15% p.a. calculated at yearly basis and the remaining 7% was payable at the time of possession of the flat. That as per allotment letter, the possession was to be given on 11.7.1994 which the appellant did not pay as a result of which the allotment was cancelled. Thus, respondents prayed for dismissal of the complaint denying any deficiency of service on their part.
5. State Commission, after taking into consideration the evidence led and the pleadings filed by both the parties, partly allowed the complaint holding that even if the contention of the Counsel for respondents is accepted that possession was to be handed over as per 6-year payment plan in the year 1996, still, construction of flat allotted to the appellant was not completed by the said period as in the year 1993 there was no trace of construction of the flat and it was because of that the consumers were given the option to opt for 3-year payment plan instead of 6-year payment plan. That this lapse on the part of the respondents amounted to deficiency in service for which the appellant is required to be compensated.
6. Taking overall view o
