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

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
R.K. Agrawal, President and Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
Vinod Kumar Chopra and Ors. – Complainants
versus
IREO Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No.2607 of 2018
Decided on 25.10.2021

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainants:Mr. Ram Phal Sheoran, Advocate Mr. Vinod Kumar Chopra, Complainant No.1 in person
For the Opp. Parties:Mr. Sameer Chaudhary and Ms. Nandini Nagar, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINTS
1) Incorporation of one-sided and unreasonable clauses in Apartment Buyer’s Agreement constitutes an unfair trade practice under Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act.
2) Developer cannot compel the apartment buyers to be bound by the one-sided contractual terms contained in the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(a)(i) [Section 58(1)(a) – Consumer Protection Act, 2019] – Complaint before NCDRC – Complainants allotted a Unit which falls in Phase 2 of the Project, where the Occupation Certificate (O.C.) has not been granted so far - Complainants made payment of Rs.1,08,13,076.91 on diff. dates per demand of the Opp. Party Developer, but Opp. Party could not complete the construction work at the Project within stipulated period of 42 months and failed to deliver the possession of the Unit – Alleging deficiency in service, complaint filed before this Commission – Findings of this Commission: Incorporation of one-sided and unreasonable clauses in Apartment Buyer’s Agreement constitutes an unfair trade practice under Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act -Developer cannot compel the apartment buyers to be bound by the one-sided contractual terms contained in the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement (Paras 2, 3, 10 & 12)

Result: Complaint allowed. Following the ratio of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “IREO Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. (supra)”, the Opp. Party Developer is directed to refund Rs.1,08,13,077/- with interest @9% S.I. p.a. within 3 months from the date of this Order failing which the Developer shall be liable for payment of default interest @12% S.I. p.a. till the payment is made. Opp. Party shall not deduct the Earnest Money of 20% from the principal amt.

ORDER

R.K. Agrawal, President.—The present Consumer Complaint has been filed under Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) by the Complainants, against the Opposite Party M/s. Ireo Grace Realtech Private Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Developer’), for refunding of money as the Opposite Party Developer failed to hand-over the possession of the Flat booked by them in the Project launched by the Developer in the name and style of “The Corridor “, within stipulated period.

2. According to the Complainants, the facts of the case are that the Opposite Party Developer launched a Residential Housing Project in the name and style of “The Corridors” (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Project’) located at Golf Course Extension Road, Sector-67-A, Tehsil & District Gurgaon, Haryana. The Opposite Party Developer drawn very rosy picture of the Project and represented that it would be a unique project with world class amenities and assured timely delivery and lots more. Attracted by the representation and assurances given by the Opposite Party Developer, Vinod Kumar Chopra and Ritu Chopra (hereinafter referred as the Complainant Nos. 1 & 2) jointly booked a residential flat in the Project by paying a sum of Rs.14,50,000/- on 18.03.2013.The Complainant Nos. 1 & 2 were allotted Unit No. CD-A3-10-1003 having super area of 1700 sq. ft. Ms. Shivani Ahuja (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant No. 3) also booked a residential flat in the said Project by paying a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- on 13.03.2013.The Complainant No. 3 was allotted Unit No. CD-C5-03-301 having super area of 1300 sq. ft. As per demand of the Opposite Party Developer, the Complainant No. 1 & 2 and Complainant No. 3 made payment of Rs.59,42,313/- and Rs.48,29,664.03/- on different dates to the Opposite Party Developer towards their respective flats. Apartment Buyer’s Agreements (hereinafter referred as the Agreement) were executed between the Parties. It is the say of the Complainants that the Apartments were originally booked @ Rs.8750/- per sq. ft. but in the Agreement, the rate of booking was mentioned as Rs.9200/- per sq. ft. and the super area of the flats booked by them were increased to 1920 sq. ft. and 1592 sq. ft. respectively. It is the say of the Complainants that due to increase in size and change in price of the Apartment, the Complaints found themselves under-budget and requested the Developer to merge both the flats. Vide letter Adj.Memo/Corr/00112 dated 30.12.2014, the Developer accepted the requests of the Complainants and Unit No. CD-C5-03-301, allotted to the Complainant No.3 was merged with Unit CD-A3-10-1003, allotted to the Complainant No.1 & 2 and Rs.48,29,664/-, i.e., the whole amount paid towards Unit No. CD-C5-03-301, was adjusted towards the cost of Unit No. CD-A3-10-1003 allotted to the Complainants No. 1 & 2. As per Clause 13.3 of the Agreement, the possession of the Unit was to be handed over within a period of 42 months from the date of approval of the building plans. Clause 13.3 of the Agreement reads as under:-

“Subject to Force Majeure, as defined herein and further subject to the allottee having complied with all its obligations under the terms and conditions of this Agreement and not having defaulted under any provision(s) of this Agreement including but not limited to the timely payment of all dues and charges including the total Sale Consideration, registration charges, stamp duty and other charges and also subject to the Allottee having complied with all formalities or documentation as prescribed by the Company, the Company proposes to offer the possession of the said Apartment to the Allottee within a period of 42 (Forty Two) months from the date of approval of the Building Plans and/or fulfillment of the preconditions imposed thereunder (“Commitment period”). The Allottee further agrees and understands that the Company shall additionally be entitled to a period of 180 days (“Grace period”), after t

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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top