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
Ansal API Megapolis Buyer’s
Association (Regd.) and Ors. – Complainants
versus
Ansal Hi-Tech Townships Ltd. – Opp. Party
Consumer Case No.1467 of 2015
Decided on 8.11.2021

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainants:Mr. Saurabh Jain, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:Mr. Rakesh Kumar and Mr. Rupesh Kumar Sinha, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINTS
1) Keeping in view the Judgment passed by this Commission in Emmar MGF Land Ltd. & Ors. vs. Amit Puri [II (2015) CPJ 568 NC], wherein it was laid down that after the promised date of delivery, it is discretion of the Complainant whether he wants to accept the offer of possession, if any, or seek refund of the amounts paid with reasonable interest.
2) Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Devasis Rudra, II (2019) CPJ 29 SC has observed “...It would be manifestly unreasonable to construe contract between the parties as requiring the buyer to wait indefinitely for possession.
3) Complainants cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of Flats, as construction not completed .

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21 (Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58) – Complaint - Complainants booked their respective flats in same Project of the Opp. Party; entered into identical Agreements to Sell, issues regarding their allotment such as delay in handing over possession, deficiency in construction, illegal demands by the Developer and huge gap in super area and carpet area and as such Complainants’ association is competent to file Complaint - possession of flats was supposed to be handed over within 42 months from date of signing of the Agreement - Regarding Arbitration Clause, in Judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/S Emaar MGF Land Limited vs. Aftab Singh – I (2019) CPJ 5 (SC), it has laid down the law that an Arbitration clause in the Agreement does not bar the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora to entertain the Complaint - Opp. Party contended that due to farmers’ agitation delay occurred in completing Project – Opp. Party can’t take advantage of lame excuse that due to farmer’s agitation Project couldn’t be developed within stipulated prd. - Complainants took huge loans for payment towards flat, paying EMIs with heavy interest to banks - Complainants allotted flats in 2009, till date construction not completed - Keeping in view the Judgment passed by this Commission in Emmar MGF Land Ltd. & Ors. vs. Amit Puri [II (2015) CPJ 568 NC], wherein it was laid down that after the promised date of delivery, it is discretion of the Complainant whether he wants to accept the offer of possession, if any, or seek refund of the amounts paid with reasonable interest – Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Devasis Rudra, II (2019) CPJ 29 SC has observed “...It would be manifestly unreasonable to construe contract between the parties as requiring the buyer to wait indefinitely for possession - Complainants cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of Flats, as construction not completed - Complainants are entitled for refund. (Paras 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 23, 28, 29 & 30)

Result: Opp. Party/Developer directed to refund the amt. deposited by Complainants alongwith interest @9% p.a. from date of respective date of deposit. Complaints disposed of.

ORDER

R.K. Agrawal, President.—This Complaint, under Section 21 read with Section 2(b)(ii) and Section 12(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), has been filed by Ansal API Megapolis Buyer’s Association: a voluntary Consumer Association registered under The Societies Registration Act, 1860, having Registration No. S/1350/2015 along with 16 individual Complainants being Allottees/flat buyers in the project “Megapolis Green Hi-Tech Township”(for short “the Project”), launched by the sole Opposite Party, namely, Ansal Hi-Tech Townships Ltd. (for short, “the Developer”) in Bulandshahar, adjoining Greater Noida, UP.

2. According to the Complainants, since all the Complainants have booked their respective flats in the same Project of the Opposite Party; entered into identical Agreements to Sell with them and the issues regarding their allotment such as delay in handing over possession, deficiency in construction, illegal demands by the Developer and huge gap in super area and carpet area, are identical and resultantly almost same reliefs have been prayed for by all the Complainants; the Complaint is proposed to have been filed in a representative capacity under the aforesaid provision.

3. The Complainants have sought to place reliance on Order dated 28.08.2015 passed by this Commission in CC No. 120 of 2015, wherein it has been held that the Complainant, being a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, consists of apartment buyers, is therefore a recognized Consumer Association and since the Reliefs claimed are of the same nature and against the same Person, such an Association is competent to file a Complaint. Against the said order dated 28.08.2015, the Builder had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeal No.8423 of 2015 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its Order dated 16.10.2015 was pleased to dismiss the said Appeal thereby upholding the order this Commission.

4. Factually, the Opposite Party Developer is engaged in the business of construction and real estate. Allured by the representations and assurances given by the Developer that they have the international repute of developing and selling residential and commercial complexes; they had successfully launched several residential and commercial complexes in different part of the country; they deliver high quality structures with superior functionality within the agreed time frame; necessary approvals for the Project have been arranged and the Project will be developed with assistance of internationally renowned Architects, thus the Complainants booked their respective flats. At the time of booking of the flats, the Complainants were informed about the different sizes of the flats which were offered by the Opposite Party, with a number of world class facilities in the said Hi-Tech township. The said Project was supposed to be spread over an area of 2504 acres. Thus the Complainants chose the flat size as per their budget and made the booking accordingly. Builder-Buyer’s Agreement/Apartment Allottee’s Arrangements (for short, “Agreement”) were executed from the year 2009 onwards.

5. As per clause 4.1 of the Agreement, the possession of flats was supposed to be handed over within 42 months from the date of signing of the Agreement. As stated by Complainants, requisites with respect to property details along with area of the flat, date of booking, date of execution of agreement, proposed date of possession, total sale consideration and total monies paid towards sale consideration is as follows:

Sr. No.

Allottee’s name

Flat number

Date of Booking

Date of Execution of Agreement

Date of Possession

Total Sale Consideration (Rs)

Amount Paid (Rs.)

 

1

Prashant Kumar Singh & Anr.

H-0552

23.02.2009

23.02.2009

23.09.2012

27,53,159/

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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