Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dinesh Singh, Presiding Member
M/s. NUDPL Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. —Appellant
versus
Saiprasad Natarajan and Anr. —Respondents
First Appeal No.2378 of 2019
Decided on 26.2.2020
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Abir Phukan, Advocate with Mr. Ashkrit Tiwari, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Builder indulging in protracted litigation is a factor to be considered while disposing consumer complaint.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 19 – Appeal – Real State – Booking of residential unit – Unit not complete within stipulated time – Occupancy-cum-completion certificate has not been obtained – Deficiency in service proved – Builder indulging in protracted litigation – Loss and injury to the consumer proved – Amount deposited by the Complainants with the Builder has to be refunded as per direction of State Commission – Held that, order of State Commission is confirmed with cost of Rs. 50000. [Paras 8,11,12,14 and 16]
Result: Appeal dismissed
ORDER
Dinesh Singh, Presiding Member—This Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, challenging the Order dated 24.07.2019 in C.C. No. 231 of 2017 passed by The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka, hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’.
The Appellant herein, M/s NUDPL Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., was the Opposite Party before the State Commission, and is hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Builder Co.’.
The Respondents herein, Mr. Saiprasad Natrajan and Mrs. Shilpa Sundareshan, were the Complainants before the State Commission, and are hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Complainants’.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Builder Co. on admission.
Perused the material on record including inter alia the Order dated 24.07.2019 of the State Commission and the Memorandum of Appeal.
3. In the interest of justice, to provide fair opportunity to the Builder Co., to settle the matter on merit, the delay of 05 days in filing the Appeal is condoned.
4. The Complainants’ case before the State Commission was that they booked a residential unit with the Builder Co. for Rs. 81,24,360/-. An Agreement between the Builder Co. and the Complainants was executed on 11.03.2013. The Complainants paid Rs. 16,24,873/- to the Builder Co. in 2013. The Project had not even been initiated when the Builder Co. raised further demand. The Project was not completed by the agreed and assured date, i.e. 31.08.2015. The Project was nowhere nearing completion.
5. The Complainants filed Consumer Complaint No. 231 of 2017 before the State Commission in 2017. The State Commission, vide its impugned Order dated 24.07.2019, allowed the Complaint.
6. It is noted that [a] it is admitted that Rs. 16,24,872/- were paid to the Builder Co. by the Complainants (in 2013); [b] the Project had not even been initiated when the Builder Co. raised further demand; [c] the Project was not completed by the agreed and assured date of completion (30.08.2015), or within a reasonable period thence (reasonable period here would connote such period as a reasonable man would not normally agitate); [d] there is nothing on record to show that the Complainants were not ready and willing to pay the balance consideration amount, as per the terms and conditions of the Agreement, provided it was visible that the Project had been initiated and it was reasonably evident that it would be completed by the agreed and assured date.
7. The State Commission has observed in para 7 of its Order that “- - - it is evident that complainant purchased residential apartment in the project initiated by the OP under the name “Nitesh Cape Cod”. The sale consideration was Rs. 81,24,360/- out of which the complainant has paid a sum of Rs. 16,24,872/-. According to the terms, the OPs were required to hand over the possession on or before August 30, 2015.- - -” and that “- - -OP has not started the project itself.- - -”.
8. The State Commission has passed a fair, reasoned Order; no jurisdictional error, or legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice, is visible. The Award made appears just and equitable (“The above complaint is allowed with costs of Rs. 5,000/-. The OP is hereby directed to refund Rs. 16,24,872/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of receipt till the date of actual realization within 3 months from the date of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to take steps to initiate recovery proceedings under Section 25 and criminal proceedings under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act.”). There can be no two opinions that the amount deposited (Rs. 16,24,872/-) by the Complainants with the Builder Co. has necessarily to be refunded. In the facts and specificities of the case, the rate of interest (12% p.a.) appears reasonable.
9. Prior to, or, at the least, simultaneous to, getting a Consumer to enter into its agreement and accepting the first payment towards the total cost of the
