SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Deepa Sharma, Member
AURA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. - Appellant
Vs.
RAJESH KUMAR SINGHAL - Respondent
First Appeal No. 1214 of 2018
Decided On : 18-01-2019

Advocates Appeared:
Praveen Mahajan, Adv., Nivedita Jain, Adv.

The court emphasized the importance of considering the facts and circumstances of each case in determining the appropriate compensation and interest under the Consumer Protection Act.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act - Flat Buyer's Agreement - Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - [SUMMARY OF ACT SECTIONS: Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986] - The court discussed the provisions of the Flat Buyer's Agreement, the jurisdiction of the State Commission, and the principles of compensation and interest under the Consumer Protection Act. The court emphasized the importance of considering the facts and circumstances of each case in determining the appropriate compensation and interest, and highlighted the unfairness of imposing different criteria for the appellant and the flat buyers in the agreement.

Fact of the Case:

The Respondent booked a flat with the Appellant and entered into a Flat Buyer's Agreement. The project was not completed, and the possession of the flat was not handed over to the Respondent. The Respondent sought a refund of the deposited amount and compensation for harassment and mental agony.

Finding of the Court:

The State Commission allowed the Complaint and directed the refund of the deposited amount with interest, compensation for harassment, and litigation charges to the Complainant. The court found no illegality in the State Commission's order and dismissed the Appeal.

Issues: The issues included the jurisdiction of the State Commission, the adequacy of compensation and interest, and the fairness of the Appellant's actions in the Flat Buyer's Agreement.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of considering the facts and circumstances of each case in determining the appropriate compensation and interest. It also highlighted the unfairness of imposing different criteria for the appellant and the flat buyers in the agreement.

Final Decision: The Appeal was dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT/ORDER :

Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member - Ia 12402/2018 (c/delay) Learned counsel for the Respondent on instructions states that he has no objection if the application for condonation of delay be allowed subject to costs.

In view of the submission, in the interest of justice and for the reasons disclosed in the application, the delay is condoned on payment of costs of 20, 000/-. The costs shall be paid to the Complainant/Respondent within four weeks from today.

Appeal

1. The present Appeal, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), has been filed by the Opposite Party, Aura Infrastructure Private Limited, against the order dated 14.03.2018 in Complaint No.292 of 2011 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short "the State Commission"), filed by the Respondent herein.

2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the Respondent had booked a flat in one of the projects of M/s Aura Infrastructure Private Limited (for short "the Appellant") and entered into a Flat Buyer's Agreement dated 17.01.2008. The total sale consideration of the flat was 14, 25, 000/-. The Complainant had paid a sum of 13, 53, 750/- which was 95% of the total sale consideration.

3. The contention of the Respondent was that he took a loan of 8, 95, 000/- from PNB Housing Bank and was paying EMI of 10, 300/- per month. As per the Flat Buyer's Agreement, the possession of the subject flat was to be handed over by April 2009 to the Respondent/Complainant. When the Complainant found that the Appellant had not been able to complete the project as the progress of the construction was not satisfactory, he pointed it out to the Appellant but of no avail. He thereafter, sent a legal notice dated 31.03.2011 asking for refund of the amount of 35, 19, 550/-. He had also contended that all along he had been staying in a rented accommodation and paying Rent of Rs.12, 000/- per month. Since the subject flat was not handed over to him in time, in the Complaint the prayer made by him was to direct the Appellant to hand over the possession of the subject flat along with compensation of 21, 65, 800/- towards harassment and mental agony and also the costs incurred due to deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant and also another relief which the court would deem fit.

4. In the Written Statement filed by the Appellant, the Appellant has not disputed the fact that the project was to be completed by April 2009 and the possession was to be handed over by that time and that it had failed to do so. They took several pleas to justify its failure to hand over the possession within the stipulated period which includes resignation of one of the Directors and the delay on the part of Registrar of Companies in this matter and that the global recession which led to acute shortage of funds in finance market and the delayed payment by the allottees etc. It is also contended that the State Commission did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction as well as territorial jurisdiction for the reason that the value of the flat was less than 20, 00, 000/- and the prayer for compensation of 21, 65, 800/-, which has been claimed, has been made with the sole intention to bring the matter within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission. It is further contended that the Appellant had neither the main office nor the branch office within the territorial jurisdiction of the State Commission as well as the State Commission did not have the territorial jurisdiction. It is also contended that the Complaint was false and fictitious and has been filed with the ulterior motives and hence, deserves to be dismissed.

5. Parties had led their evidences by way of affidavits.

6. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the State Commission allowed the Complaint and issued the following directions:

1. refund the amount of Rs.13, 55, 750/- alongwith interest @18% p.a. from the date of its deposit till the date of its realizat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top