UNION TERRITORY STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Jasbir Singh, President, Padma Pandey, Rajesh K. Arya, Members
Manju Bala, Rakesh Bala, Sanjeev Gupta, Meenu Aggarwal, Manohar Tegta, Lalit Mohan Sharma, Anita Singal, Pratibha Nainta, Rohit Kaushal, Laj Rani Gupta, Vanshi Kotru, Rajnish Kaushal - Complainants
Versus
Bcl Homes Ltd. & Ors. - Opposite Parties
Complaint Nos. 794 of 2017 & 67, 68, 147, 149, 171 to 174, 249, 272, 296 of 2018
Decided On : 10-12-2018

A builder is not entitled to invoke the force majeure clause of the Agreement, for extension of period, for delivery of possession of the unit, in the absence of any force majeure circumstances having been faced by the builder.

Headnote:

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - BUILDER - DELAY IN POSSESSION - INTEREST ON DEPOSITED AMOUNT - UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE - BCL HOMES LIMITED - CHINAR HOMES, KISHANPURA, ZIRAKPUR, MOHALI - PAPRA - ARBITRATION CLAUSE - SECTION 8 (AMENDED) OF 1996 ACT - CONSUMER COMPLAINTS - JURISDICTION - TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION - SECTION 17 (2) (A) AND (C) OF THE ACT - FORCE MAJEURE CIRCUMSTANCES - GLOBAL RECESSION/SLOW DOWN IN THE MARKET - SECTION 9 OF THE ALLOTMENT LETTER - PENALTY AMOUNT - CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI - PARSVNATH EXOTICA GHAZIABAD RESIDENT’S ASSOCIATION V. PARSVNATH BUILDWELL PVT. LTD. & ANR. - CAPT. GURTAJ SINGH SAHNI & ANR. V. MANAGER, UNITECH LIMITED & ANR. - H.P. HOUSING BOARD V. JANAK GUPTA - LATA CONSTRUCTION & ORS. V. DR. RAMESHCHANDRA RAMNIKLAL SHAH AND ANR. - PRASAD HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED V. E. MAHENDER REDDY AND ORS. -

Fact of the Case:

The complainants had purchased a unit in a project launched by BCL Homes Limited and paid a substantial amount towards the purchase price. The possession of the unit was to be delivered within a period of 18 to 24 months, with a grace period of three months (total 27 months), from the date of signing of the allotment letter. However, the possession was not delivered as per the stipulated date. The complainants made several requests to the builder to deliver the possession, but they were given only false assurances. The complainants also alleged that there was no sign of progress of construction at the site and that the tower in which the unit was situated was also not complete. They further alleged that the builder had defaulted in making repayment of loan amount raised by them against the said project, from the bank and that the bank had approached Debt Recovery Tribunal to secure its rights.

Finding of the Court:

The Commission held that the complainants were entitled to get possession of the unit and also they were required to be suitably compensated for inordinate delay in the matter. The Commission also held that the builder was not entitled to invoke the force majeure clause of the Agreement, for extension of period, for delivery of possession of the unit. The Commission further held that the complainants were entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. on the deposited amount for the period of delay, till delivery of possession of the unit. The Commission also held that the builder was liable to pay compensation to the complainants, for providing them deficient service and guilty of adoption of unfair trade practice.

Issues: 1. Whether the complainants were entitled to get possession of the unit and also they were required to be suitably compensated for inordinate delay in the matter? 2. Whether the builder was entitled to invoke the force majeure clause of the Agreement, for extension of period, for delivery of possession of the unit? 3. Whether the complainants were entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. on the deposited amount for the period of delay, till delivery of possession of the unit? 4. Whether the builder was liable to pay compensation to the complainants, for providing them deficient service and guilty of adoption of unfair trade practice?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The complainants were entitled to get possession of the unit and also they were required to be suitably compensated for inordinate delay in the matter. 2. The builder was not entitled to invoke the force majeure clause of the Agreement, for extension of period, for delivery of possession of the unit. 3. The complainants were entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. on the deposited amount for the period of delay, till delivery of possession of the unit. 4. The builder was liable to pay compensation to the complainants, for providing them deficient service and guilty of adoption of unfair trade practice.

Final Decision: The Commission partly allowed the complaints and directed the builder to hand over actual physical possession of the unit to the complainants, within a period of 4 months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, complete in all respects, after obtaining necessary occupation and completion certificates from the competent authorities, on receipt of legally due amount from them (complainants). The Commission also directed the builder to execute and get registered sale deed, in respect of the unit, in favour of the complainants, within two months, from the date of handing over possession, on payment of registration and stamp duty charges, by them to the Registering Authorities. The Commission further directed the builder to pay compensation, by way of interest @ 9% p.a., on the entire deposited amount, to the complainants, from the promised date to 31.12.2018, within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the said amount shall further carry penal interest @11% p.a. from the date of default instead of 9% p.a., till realization. The Commission also directed the builder to pay compensation by way of interest @ 9% p.a. on the entire deposited amount, w.e.f. 1.1.2019, onwards (per month), till actual delivery of actual physical possession of the unit, by the 10th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry penal interest @11% p.a., instead of 9% p.a., from the date of default, till payment is made. The Commission also directed the builder to pay compensation, in the sum of Rs. 1 lakh, respectively i.e. in each case, on account of mental agony, physical harassment, caused to the complainant(s), deficiency in providing service and adopting unfair trade practice and also litigation cost to the tune of Rs. 33,000, respectively, i.e. in each case, within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the same shall carry interest @9% p.a., from the date of filing the respective complaint(s) till realization.