Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
J.M. Malik, Presiding Member and Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
SANGEETA ARORA - Appellant
Versus
DLF UNIVERSAL LTD. - Respondent
Revision Petition No. 2286 of 2012 from Order dated 21.2.2012 in First Appeal No. 106 of 2008 of Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula
Decided on : 28-05-2013

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Mohan K. Kukreja, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. H.L. Tiku, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Abhijeet Swaroop, Advocate, for the Respondent

The main legal point established is that in cases of deficient services and unjust demands by the opposite party, the court may impose compensation for litigation charges and mental agony, and order refund with interest.

Headnote:
Apartment Allotment Dispute - Real Estate - [Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 73, Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 74, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(g), Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(o), Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(r), Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(g), Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(o), Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(r), Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(g), Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(o), Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(r)] - The court discussed the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 73 and Section 74, and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), and Section 2(1)(r). The court interpreted the provisions to determine the rights and liabilities of the parties in an apartment allotment dispute, including the refund of excess amount paid, compensation for delay, and the imposition of litigation charges and mental agony.
Fact of the Case:

The complainant booked an apartment with the opposite party, who failed to deliver possession within the agreed time and demanded extra money for increased area. The complainant sought refund and compensation.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the opposite party was deficient in providing services and had unjustly demanded additional payment. It also noted the inordinate delay in construction and the complainant's deprivation of owning a house despite payment. The court imposed compensation for litigation charges and mental agony.
Issues: The issues involved the failure to deliver possession within the agreed time, demand for extra payment, and the complainant's economic stringency due to her husband's illness.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the opposite party's demand for additional payment was unjustified, and the inordinate delay in construction deprived the complainant of owning a house. It imposed compensation for litigation charges and mental agony.
Final Decision: The court directed the opposite party to refund the amount received with 20% interest, imposed compensation for litigation charges and mental agony, and highlighted the inordinate delay in construction.

ORDER

J.M. Malik, Presiding Member - On 14.2.1994, Mrs. Sangita Arora, the complainant, in this case booked an apartment measuring super area 91.03 sq. mt. with the opposite party, DLF Universal Limited. The opposite party formally allotted an apartment No. B-061 in Regency Park, DLF City, Gurgaon to the petitioner. Agreement between the parties was entered into on 23.5.1994. It was agreed that price of the flat would be Rs. 7,59,372. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 89,607 to the opposite party as an earnest money. It was stipulated in the agreement that the possession of the apartment would be delivered to the complainant within three and a half years from the date of booking i.e. 14.2.1994, according to the complainant. The opposite party failed to deliver the possession of the apartment to the complainant up to 29.8.1997 without assigning any reason. Moreover, the opposite party increased the area and demanded extra money from the complainant. The grievance of the complainant is that she was not informed about the said fact and no consent was obtained from the complainant in this regard. Till then the complainant had paid an amount of Rs. 8,01,131.32 so far.

2. On 2.6.2000, the opposite party acting unilaterally and arbitrarily cancelled the allotment and also sent a cheque for a sum of Rs. 6,16,638 towards the refund due to the complainant. However, the complainant did not encash that amount. Thereafter, the opposite party offered restoration of the flat but demanded undue and arbitrary amounts from the complainant. The complainant requested the opposite party to charge just and reasonable amount but the opposite party sent a letter dated 18.2.2003 to the complainant demanding an amount of Rs. 11,15,330 as pre-condition for restoration of the allotment of the apartment.

3. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum and made the following prayers:

"1. the respondent be directed not to charge holding charge not to charge compound interest, not to increase area of apartment more than 5% and restore the allotment of the apartment in question.

2. Or in the alternative the respondent be directed to pay/refund amount of Rs. 8,01,131.32 with interest at the rate of 24% per annum, till date to the complainant.

3. The respondent may also be directed to pay penalty of Rs. 6,00,000 for not delivering possession of apartment in question in agreed time of 3 years to the complainant as per terms and conditions of agreement dated 23.5.1994. The respondent may also be penalized for violating terms and conditions of agreement dated 23.5.1994.

Any other relief which this Hon'ble Forum deems fit and proper may also be granted in favour of the complainant."

4. The defence set up by the respondent is this. It was admitted that the petitioner had submitted an application for allotment on 14.2.1994. The complainant had opted for 10 years payment plans in respect of apartment in question. The complainant failed to pay overdue instalments despite receipt of letter dated 30.12.1997. Under the circumstances, the opposite party was compelled to terminate the agreement dated 23.3.1994. Again, vide letter dated 10.9.1998, the complainant was called upon to clear the outstanding payment and to complete the requisite paper work so that the possession of the apartment could be given to the petitioner. Thereafter, several opportunities were granted to the complainant to pay the amount but the complainant did not do the needful. The complainant sent a letter dated 24.8.2001 to the opposite party requesting it to waive the interest which the opposite party did not agree. It is explained that allotment of the apartment in favour of complainant, in view of the circumstances, was validly and legally terminated. It is contended that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5. The District Forum dismissed the complaint and the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the complai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document