Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
R.K. Agrawal, President and Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
Arihant Shivank Infra Projects Limited and Anr. – Appellants
versus
Renu Maheshwari and Ors. – Respondents
First Appeal No.1886 of 2018, First Appeal No.160 of 2019, First Appeal No.1887 of 2018, First Appeal No.1888 of 2018 and First Appeal No.1889 of 2018
Decided on 10.2.2021
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 19 : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 41] – Allotment of flat – Delay in delivery of possession – Refund of amount deposited – Scope – Complainant entered into an agreement to sell and deposited the requisite amount – despite receiving the full sale consideration appellant-Builder failed to deliver the possession within stipulated period – Complaints allowed – State Commission directed the Builder to refund the amount deposited by complainants along with interest @ 18% from the date of deposit – Hence this appeal – Evidently, State Commission passed the impugned order without taking on record the evidence filed by Builder as Builder has failed to deposit the costs – State Commission not justified in refusing to take the evidence filed by Builder merely on the ground of not depositing the costs – It ought to have granted some more opportunity for depositing the costs – Matter remitted back to State Commission for proper adjudication after taking into account the evidence filed by Builder – Complaints restored – Impugned orders set aside. (Paras 5 to 7)
Result: Order set aside.
ORDER
Challenge in these First Appeal Nos. 1886 of 2018, 1887 of 2018, 1888 of 2018, 1889 of 2018 and 160 of 2019, filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by M/s. Arihant Shivank Infra Projects Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “Opposite Party Builder”) is to the Orders dated 21.08.2018 and 20.11.2018 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred to as the “State Commission”), in Complaint Nos. 03 / 2017, 20 / 2017, 21 / 2017, 22 / 2017 and 23 / 2017 whereby the Complaints were allowed and the Opposite Party Builder was directed to refund the deposited amount by the Complainants alongwith 18% interest from the date of deposit. The Opposite Party Builder was also directed to pay Rs.2 lakh towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.50,000/- towards cost of proceedings.
Since the facts and question of law involved in all these Appeals are similar except for minor variations in the flat number and dates and events, these Appeals are being disposed of by this common Order. However, for the sake of convenience, First Appeal No. 1886 of 2018 is treated as the lead case and the facts enumerated hereinafter are taken from Complaint No. 20 of 2017.
2. Succinctly put, the material facts, giving rise to filing of the Complaint, are that the Opposite Party Builder is engaged in construction activities of both Commercial and Residential Projects. It had launched its residential Project in the name and style of ‘Dynasty’ located at Village Ramsingpura @ Rampura, Tehsil Saganer, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Project’).The Representative of the Opposite Party Builder visited Pilani and conducted a seminar in respect of the Project and provided the detailed information and Brochure of the Project to the Complainants. On the basis of the information provided by the Opposite Party Builder, the Complainant entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 12.07.2012 with the Opposite Party Builder and booked a flat, i.e., Flat No. 324, having super built-up area 930 sq. ft. for a total sale consideration of Rs.15,44,400/- plus Service Tax. The Complainant had paid the booking amount of Rs.1,55,583/- and the balance amount of Rs.13,82,590/- alongwith service tax was to be paid as per payment schedule. As per Clause 9 of the Agreement, the Opposite Party Builder was liable to hand over the possession of the Flat by 30.04.2015 with a grace period of 12 months, i.e., latest by 30.04.2016.As per demand of the Opposite Party Builder, the Complainant deposited a sum of Rs.15,83,400/- instead of Rs.15,44,400/- upto February 2014.The Complainant approached the Opposite Party Builder for obtaining the information about physical possession of the Flat, where she was assured by the Opposite Party Builder that the possession of the flat will be handed over very soon. The Complainant personally visited the site to see the progress of the construction where she was surprised to see that there was a simple structure and no construction activity was going on at the site and the material used in the construction was of very low quality. After completion of 12 months of grace period, she again approached the Opposite Party Builder for getting possession of the Flat but the Opposite Party Builder again gave a stereo-typed reply that possession will be handed over very soon. She again visited the site and found that there was no development in construction activity. The site was as it was when she earlier visited. Despite receiving the full sale consideration, the Opposite Party Builder failed to deliver the possession within stipulated period and seeing the pace of construction activity there was no possibility of getting the possession of the flat in near future, therefore, the Complainant alleging Unfair Trade Practice and Deficiency in Service on the part of the Opposite Party Builder filed a Consumer Complaint before the State Commission s
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
