Back
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, President and Anil Srivastava, Member
[Via Video Conferencing]
Sanjeev Ginotra – Complainant
versus
M/s. Ansal Hi-Tech Township Ltd. – Opp. Party
Complaint No.371 of 2016
Decided on 12.7.2021
(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 17 [Sec. 47(1) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019] – Regd. Office of the 1st Opp. Party is situated in Delhi; State Commission did have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint - Complainant booked an apartment in Opp. Party’s building – Agreement stated that installment be paid at the completion of every stage of building – Complainant paid regular installments till construction was stalled by builder – Complainant issued notice for granting of possession but didn’t receive any response – Complainant filed complaint before State Commission alleging deficiency - Opp. Party pled ‘Force Majeure’ defense listed in the agreement. (Paras 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 29)
(ii) Force Majeure – Force Majeure listed by many builders as defense for delay in construction – Opp. Party alleged NGT order stopping availability of groundwater as reason for delay in construction – State Commission ruled that as NGT order pre-dated the agreement, alternate arrangements should have been made – Flat purchaser cannot be punished for builders’ failures. (Paras 29, 30 & 31)
(iii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 24A [Sec. 69(1) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019] – Limitation Period – Opp. Parties alleged that State Commission cannot hear the matter as limitation period of two years from the arising of cause of action had passed – State Commission ruled, based on precedents, that building disputes are treated as recurrent cause of action as dispute hasn’t been solved till date. (Paras 19, 20 & 21)
(iv) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(g) [Sec. 2(11) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019] - Deficiency in Service – Complainant alleged deficiency in service on part of the Opp. Party – State Commission ruled there’s failure to comply with terms of contract on part of builder – Providing possession of flat on time, qualifies as deficiency in service under the Act – Builder couldn’t complete construction per terms of the contract – Commission ruled that it qualifies as deficiency in service – State Commission awarded amt. paid long with interest, damages and costs.
(Paras 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 & 37)
Result: State Commission awarded the Complainant the amt. of Rs. 30,98,880/- paid with 6 % interest for each installment paid, Rs. 2,00,000/- as damages and Rs. 50,000/- as litigation costs.
JUDGMENT
Dr. Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, President.—Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present complaint are that on 22.07.2008, Complainant booked a plot in the project of the Opposite Party by the name and style of “Megapolis” located at Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh and paid a registration advance of Rs. 6,88,640/- drawn on ICICI Bank, which was duly acknowledged by the Opposite party vide receipts no. 558 and 559.
2. Vide letter dated 09.08.2008, the Complainant was allotted Plot bearing no. 059 admeasuring 450 sq. Mtrs for a basic sale price of Rs. 68, 86, 400/-. Thereafter, a Plot Allottee(s) Arrangement was entered between the parties on 22.07.2008 with respect to the aforesaid booking. The Plot Allottee(s) Arrangement provided for the Payment plan which has been reproduced below for ready reference:-
| S. No. | Stage (Due Date) | % of Basic Sale Price | Amount Due |
| 1. | At The Time of Booking | 10.00 % of Basic | Rs. 6, 88, 640.00/- |
| 2. | 45 Day(s) From The Date of Booking | 10.00 % of Basic | Rs. 6, 88, 640.00/- |
| 3. | 90 Day(s) From The Date of Booking | 12.5 % of Basic | Rs. 8, 60, 800.00/- |
| 4. | 135 Day(s) From The Date of Booking | 12.5 % of Basic | Rs. 8, 60, 800.00/- |
| 5. | On Laying of WBM Road | 10.00 % of Basic | Rs. 6, 88, 640.00/- |
| 6. | On Laying of Storm Water | 10.00 % of Basic | Rs. 6, 88,640.00/- |
| 7. | On Laying of Sewer Line | 10.00 % of Basic | Rs. 6, 88, 640.00/- |
| 8. | On Laying of Water Line | 10.00 % of Basic | Rs. 6, 88, 640.00/- |
| 9. | On Laying of Electric Cable | 10.00 % of Basic | Rs. 6, 88, 640.00/- |
| 10. | At The Time of Offer of Possession | 0.5 % of the Basic | Rs. 3, 44, 320.00/- |
|
|
| Total | Rs. 68, 86, 400.00/- |
3. The Complainant made timely payments to meet its liability for the aforesaid plot. The Complainant has made a payment of Rs. 30,98,880/- which constitutes nearly 45% of the Basic Sale Price.
4. However, the payment plan provided that the Complainant was only liable to make the payments towards the advancement in construction as executed by the Opposite Party.
5. The Complainant time and again inquired about the status of construction and further payments. However, the Opposite Party failed to give a satisfactory reply to the Complainant.
6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the Complainant wrote a letter dated 20.11.2013 to the Opposite Party, requesting the Opposite Party to either deliver the possession of the plot or to refund the amount deposited by the Complainant. The Opposite Party again failed to revert to the letter of the Complainant.
7. Left with no other option, the Complainant then got served a legal notice dated 09.12.2015 upon the Opposite Party, seeking refund of the amount deposited along with the 24% interest on the amount. The Opposite Party did not pay any heed to the legal notice.
8. Thus, left with no other option, alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, the Complainant approached this commission.
9. The Opposite Party contested the present case and raised some preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the present complaint and contended (a) that the said plot has been purchased solely for the purpose of investment, merely for “Commercial Purpose”, hence, the Complainant is not a Consumer within the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ; (b) that there exists an Arbitration Clause in the Arrangement which provides that a dispute arising from the arrangement shall be referred to Arbitration ; (c) that this Commission lacks territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present Complaint ; (d) that the Complaint has been filed beyond the period of Limitation ; (e) that the delay was caused due to circumstances beyond the control of the Opposite party and hence have invoked the force majeure clause ; (f) that the Complainant has failed to establish
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
