NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath,Presiding Member and Ram Surat Ram Maurya,Member
K.V. Narendra Babuand Ors. – Complainants
versus
State of Telanganaand Ors. – Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No.493 of 2016
Decided on 15.11.2021
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S. 12 (1) (c) and 21[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.35(1) & 58] – REAL ESTATE – Delay in Delivery of Possession – Complaint filed by ‘persons so interested’ and ‘persons having the same interest’ / Joint Compliant – whether maintainable before National Commission – joint Complaint under 12 (1) (c) of the Act is maintainable – The use of the words “all consumers so interested’ and “on behalf of or for the benefit of all consumers so interested”, in Section 12(1)(c) leaves no doubt that such a complaint must necessarily be filed on behalf of or for the benefit of all the persons having a common grievance, seeking a common relief and consequently having a community of interest against the same service provider.” [Paras 11,12]
(ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S. 12 (1) (c) and 21[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.35(1) & 58] – REAL ESTATE – levy of parking charges by Housing board – if Justified – as terms and condition of the Demand Survey Notification, parking charges levied by Opposite Party No.2/Telangana Housing Board are justified and does not amount to unfair trade practice. [Para 15]
(iii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S. 12 (1) (c) and 21[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.35(1) & 58] – REAL ESTATE – Flat Buyer Agreement – Delay in Delivery of Possession – Compensation for such delay – Terms of Flat Buyer Agreement providing for delays in delivery of possession, no right is provided to the Complainants/flat buyers – An Agreement or a term thereof is substantively unfair, oppressive or unconscionable to one of the Parties – On facts, Clause 3 relating to delay in payment by the flat buyers and Clause 13 relating to delay in delivery of possession by Opposite Party No.2 are one sided, unfair – Delay in delivery of possession by Opposite Party No.2/ Telangana Housing Board amounts to deficiency in service – Complaint is partly allowed and Opposite Party No.2 is directed to pay simple interest to the Complainants at the rate of 6% p.a., on the amount paid from the due date of possession till the date of offer of possession, after the date of obtaining occupancy certificate. [Paras 17,18]
ORDER
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member.—The case of the Complainants is that they are the allottees of Residential Flats in ‘Sampoornam’ Scheme, notified by Opposite Party No.2, vide Demand Survey Notification DS/2009 dated 19.09.2009 for 270 Flats (Three blocks of 90 Flats each). These Flats were proposed to be constructed by Opposite Party No.2 at Venture-III, Phase XV, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, with a notified cost of Rs.30.80 lakhs. After successful draw of the allotment, letters for depositing 10% of the notified cost were issued to the Complainants in June, 2010 to convey their willingness. Accordingly, the Complainants paid 10% of the notified cost. On 10.06.2011, intimation letters for allotment of Flats were sent to the Complainants at a Tentative Cost of Rs.30.80 lakhs.As per the Demand Survey Notification, revised tentative cost was to be intimated to the applicants on receipt of the tenders and it was stated that any enhancement in the final cost would not exceed more than 10% of the said revised tentative cost. As per the terms & and conditions of the Agreement, flats were to be constructed within 24 months from the date of commencement of the scheme. It is alleged that the construction of the first two blocks was completed after a delay of four years i.e., June 2014 and construction of the third block was completed in 2016. However, the Flats were not in habitable condition at that time. Thereafter, Opposite Party No.2 issued letter 10.09.2015, intimating that the final cost of the flat has been enhanced to Rs.47,85,000/- along with fixed deposit of Rs.2,76,000/- and corpus fund of Rs.31,200/-. The Complainants opposed the enhanced cost and wrote letters to the Vice Chairman and Housing Commissioner of Opposite Party No.2 but did not receive any satisfactory response. Aggrieved by the enhancement in the final cost of the flat and delay in delivery of possession, the Complainants filed Consumer Complaint before this Commission with the following prayer:-
“(a) Declare that Respondent No.2 is bound to complete the construction undertaken under the scheme of Sampoornam Flats as published in its brochures in the year 2009;
(b) grant the Complainants immediate possession of the Flats in the two completed blocks along with lift, water, electrical fittings, sanitary fittings, proper flooring, solar fencing and solar heater as promised in the brochure without demanding for the escalated and arbitrary amount of about Rs. 20 lakh (including fixed deposit, corpus fund, maintenance etc.) over and above the tentative cost of Rs.30.80 lakh from each allottee as a condition precedent;
(c) order the Respondent Housing Board to completeconstructionof the third block at the earliest;
(d) direct Respondent No. 2 to provide Completion Certificate and to obtain all such mandatory permissions including those from Fire Department, Airports Authority of India etc. as per law;
(e) grant the amenities block to the Complainants as the same has not been constructed as per the brochure;
(f) grant undivided share of the land to the Complainants;
(g) grant interest @ 18 per cent p.a. to the Allottees for theabnormal delay in completion of the project;
(h) order the Respondent Housing Board to pay house stipulated after the rent of Rs.25,000 per month as promised by them;
(i) grant the Complainants compensation for the mental agony caused by the Respondent Housing Board;
(j) grant the Complainants costs for legal expenses;
(k) grant any further compensation to Complainants for deficienciesfound in the Flats;
(l) order the Respondent Housing Board to provide free of cost car parking to the Complainants;
(m) order the Respondent Housing Board to provide a breakup ofthe final cost;
(n) order the Respondent Housing Board to provide compensationfor any deviations from the brochure and the proposed plan;
(o) pass such other order/s as may be deemed fi
Sheela Wanti v. Delhi Development Authority and Other
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.