Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
R.K. Agrawal, President and Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
Avnish Kumar – Appellant
versus
DLF Universal Limited and Anr. – Respondents
Execution Application No.69 of 2020 in CC/1084 of 2017
Decided on 12.1.2022
For the Appellant:Mr. Jitendra Malkan, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Pravin Bahadur and Mr. Snehil Shrivastava, Advocates
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 25, 27[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 71] – Real Estate – Alleged delay in delay in handing over possession of the flats to the flat buyers – Opposite Party Developer has not complied with the directions given vide Order dated 08.01.2018. Feeling aggrieved the Complainant has filed the present Execution Application – Whether parties are bound to comply with directions dated 03.01.2020 – Parties are bound to comply with the directions given Order dated 03.01.2020 passed by this Commission with the modifications as Ordered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Order dated 14.11.2020 – Therefore, as the payment of maintenance charges is concerned, it is observed that the Complainant shall be liable to pay the maintenance charges from the date of taking over possession by him and not before that. As such the Opposite Party shall charge maintenance charges from the Complainant from the date of taking over the possession by the Complainant and not before that – Application disposed off.
Held: Consumer Complaint was disposed off by this Commission vide Order dated 03.01.2020 in following terms:-
“(i) The OP is entitled to the additional demand on account of increase in the super area of the apartments.
(ii) The OP is not entitled to car parking charges.
(iii) The OP is not entitled to club charges.
(iv) The allottees shall be entitled to early payment rebate and timely payment rebate, wherever they have complied with the terms on which the said rebates were offered by the developer or wherever the benefit of the said rebates was extended to them, either by the developer itself or by this Commission.
(v) The OP shall pay compensation in the form of simple interest @ 7% per annum from the expected date for delivery of possession till the date on which the possession was actually offered to the allottees. In case of subsequent purchasers, the period expected for the delivery of possession will be computed from the date of purchase by them.
If the possession was delayed solely on account of the allottee having not executed the Indemnity-cum-Undertaking, prescribed by the OP, the compensation in the form of simple interest @ 7% per annum shall be payable with effect from the expected date for delivery of possession till the date on which the consumer complaint by / on behalf of such an allottee was instituted. The compensation shall be paid within a period of three months from today.
(vi) The car parking charges and club charges wherever already paid to the developer shall be refunded to the concerned allottee within three months from today, failing which the said charges shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till the date of refund.
(vii) The conveyance deed in favour of the allottees shall be executed within three months from today, subject to payment of outstanding dues, if any, payable by the allottees to the developer, in terms of this order and the requisite stamp duty and registration charges.
(viii) In CC/351/2015 and CC/2047/2016, the developer shall pay Rs.50,000/- as the cost of litigation in each complaint, whereas in the other consumer complaints, the developer shall pay Rs.25,000/- as the cost of litigation in each complaint.”
7. Vide Order dated 14.11.2020, the Hon’ble Supreme Court partly allowed the Appeal filed by the Opposite Party Developer in following terms:-
“11. Accordingly, we allow the appeals in part to the following extent:
(i) The compensation on account of delay in handing over possession of the flats to the flat buyers is reduced from 7% to 6%; and
(ii) The direction for the refund of parking charges and club charges and interest on these two components shall stand set aside. \
12. We clarify that the directions of the NCDRC are upheld, save and except, for the above two modifications in terms of clauses (i) and (ii) above. The payment at the rate of 6% per annum shall be made after making due adjustments for the compensation for delay at the contractual rate (where it has been paid in terms of the agreement to the flat purchasers). The order shall be complied with within a period of two months from today.”
Result: Application disposed off.
ORDER
R.K. Agrawal, President.—The present Execution Application has been filed by Avnish Kumar, Complainant against M/s. DLF Universal Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Opposite Party Developer).
2. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the Execution Application are that the Complainant booked a residential Flat in the Project “DLF Capital Greens” situated Shivaji Marg, New Delhi, being developed by M/s DLF Universal Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as Opposite Party Developer). Flat was to be delivered by 25.04.2013 but the Developer vide letter dated 06.09.2016 directed the Complainant to give an undertaking, in the form prescribed by the Developer, to the effect that the Complainant shall not file any legal proceedings in subject matter of the flat in question. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint No. 1084 / 2017 before this Commission. This Commission passed Interim Order on 08.01.2013, which reads as under:-
“The learned counsel for the complainant states that the complainant is pressing this complaint as an individual complaint under section 12(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act. In view of the aforesaid stand taken by the complainant, ne heed not amend the complaint so as to bring it within the purview of the section 12(1)(c) of the C.P. Act.
It is directed that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, the OP shall deliver possession of the flat in question to the complainant within four weeks from today. The flat shall be complete in all respects, including finishing at the time the possession is delivered. The possession shall be delivered and accepted without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.
Rejoinder shall be filed by the complainant within two weeks from today. Affidavit of admission/denial of the documents shall be filed by the parties within four weeks from today. Complainant shall file affidavit by way of evidence within six weeks from today. Such an affidavit by the opposite party can be filed within next four weeks.
List for directions on 11.4.2018.”
3. After continuous follow-up, the Opposite Party Developer vide letter dated 21.09.2018 again asked the Decree Holder to give the same undertaking/indemnity bond, in reply to which, the Complainant vide email dated 03.10.2018 informed the Opposite Party Developer that he is ready to accept the possession of the Flat without prejudice to his rights and contentions. Despite that the Judgment Debtor/OP is avoiding to hand over the possession under one or the other pretext. Therefore, the Opposite Party Developer has not complied with the directions given vide Order dated 08.01.2018. Feeling aggrieved the Complainant has filed the present Execution Application with the following prayer:-
“a. Admit, hear and allow this Execution Petition;
b. Impose deterrent punishment on all the persons found to be responsible for deliberately and voluntarily flouting and disobeying Order dated 08.01.2018 passed by this Commission;
c. Grant such other and further relief as it may deem fit in the interest of justice.”
4. The Opposite Party / Developer contested the Execution Application by filing reply, in which it has been stated that the possession of the Flat was offered to the Complainant vide letter dated 06.09.2016 alongwith final statement of accounts. The Complainant challenged the demands raised in the final statement of accounts by filing the Consumer Complaint No. 1084 / 2017 before this Commission. During the pendency of the Complaint, this Hon’ble Commission vide Order dated 08.01.2018 directed them to deliver the possession of the said Flat to the Complainant but the Complainant did not take the possession as he failed to submit the requisite documents required for handing over the possession. Thereafter, the Complainant filed an Interim Application No. 13719 / 2019 seeking refund of the entire amount paid alongwith interest, instead of possession. During the pendency of the aforesai
