NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member and Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Member
Suman Kumar Jha and Anr. – Complainants
versus
Mantri Technology Constellations Pvt. Ltd. – Opp. Party
Consumer Case No.54 of 2018
Decided on 29.10.2021
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21 [Section 58 – Consumer Protection Act, 2019] – Complaint before NCDRC – Complainants booked the disputed villa and were allotted the villa on 29.06.2013 – Complainants deposited a total amount of INR 35363059/- - Agreement For Sale & Agreement for Construction were executed between the parties on 13.09.2013 - promised period of handing over the possession was May 2015 - Payment plan was “Construction Linked Payment Plan”- Construction completed in Aug. 2017, as such, there was delay in construction of more than 2 years - Complainants dispute this fact, have filed various photographs taken on 06.09.2017 showing incomplete construction - Offering possession of incomplete construction and without obtaining “Completion Certificate” does not justify the act of the builder (Paras 1, 2, 8 & 12)
Result: Complaint allowed with cost of Rs. 1 lakh. Opp. Party is directed to refund the entire amt. deposited by the complainants along with interest @ 9% p.m. from the date of each deposit, within period of 2 months.
ORDER
Heard Mr. Aditya Parolia, Advocate, for the complainants and Mr. Sunder Patjoshi, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Manish Tiwari, Advocate, for the opposite party.
2. Suman Kumar Jha and Pratibha Jha (the complainants) filed this complaint for directing Mantri Technology Constellation Private Limited (the opposite party), (hereinafter referred to as the builder) (i) to refund INR 35368359/- along with interest @ 18% per annum, from the date of each deposit till its payment, (ii) to pay compensation of INR 1000000/-, for mental agony and harassment, (iii) to pay INR 100000/- as the cost of litigation and (iv) any other relief which the Commission deems fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, be passed.
3. The facts as stated in the complaint and emerged from the documents attached with it are that the builder was a company, engaged in business of development and construction of residential and commercial buildings and selling its unit to the prospective buyers. The builders launched a project of 3, 4 & 5 BHK luxurious villas in the name of “Mantri Signature Villas” on OMR-ECR Link Road, Akkarai, Chennai. The complainants booked a villa and were allotted Unit No. OL-14, Building No. Oleander, admeasuring 3900 sq. ft. at the rate of INR 8240/- per sq. ft., basic price INR 32136000/-, in the said project, on 29.06.2013. Payment plan was “Construction Linked Payment Plan”, under which 10% of the basic price was to be paid on the date of booking, 15% on the date of agreement, 25% on completion of foundation, 20% at the time of ground floor roof slab, 20% at the time of last floor roof slab and 10% at the time of offer of possession. Agreement for Sale & Agreement for Construction were executed between the parties on 13.09.2013. Under Annexure-B-1 to Agreement for Construction, the promised period of handing over the possession was May, 2015. The complainants deposited INR 1000000/- on 29.06.2013, INR 2181464/- on 03.09.2013, INR 4772196/- on 12.11.2013, INR 32136/- on 01.03.2014, INR 48204/- on 01.03.2014, INR 2000000/- on 29.04.2014, INR 4614360/- 03.05.2014, INR 1419640/- 13.05.2014, INR 4475333/- on 25.08.2014, INR 524667/- on 25.08.2014, INR 1868720/- on 16.09.2014, INR 18875/- on 16.09.2014, INR 45397/- on 25.09.2014, INR 18875 on 17.10.2014, INR 1135371/- 03.12.2014, INR 2046087/- on 16.12.2014, INR 1000000/- on 01.12.2015, INR 135377/- on 01.12.2015, INR 2046087/- on 07.01.2016. INR 32136/- on 07.01.2016, INR 1943244/- on 10.08.2017, INR 3912988/- on 28.08.2017 and INR 59750/- on 28.08.2017 (Total INR 35363059/-). The complainants diligently followed the payment plan and deposited money as and when demanded by the builder but the builder delayed the construction. The builder, vide email dated 11.12.2015, sent images of the construction, in which, no satisfactory progress in the construction was found. The complainants, vide email dated 15.12.2015, made query as to whether they would expect possession till March, 2016 but no reply was given. The builder, vide email dated 07.06.2017, called for pre-delivery inspection. The complainants, after inspection, vide email dated 07.06.2017, suggested some alteration. The builder, vide email dated 17.06.2017, demanded of INR 3592865/-, to be deposited on or before 26.06.2017, mentioning therein that the construction had reached at registration and possession stage. The complainants made query about final date of possession. Then, an email 03.07.2017 was given mentioning therein that revised possession date as August, 2018. The complainants, vide email dated 04.07.2017, protested that they were waiting for possession from more than two years and wanted a specific date for possession. The builder, vide email dated 07.08.2017, raised demand on INR 5915244/-, to be deposited on or before 26.06.2017, mentioning therein that the construction had reached registration and possession stage. The complainants deposited INR 1943244/- on 10.08.2017, INR 3912988/- on 28.08.2017 and INR
Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.