Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member and Binoy Kumar, Member
Vikas Mittal – Complainant
versus
DLF Universal Limited and Anr. – Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No.424 of 2020
Decided on 12.1.2022
For the Complainant:Mr. Aditya Parolia, Mr. Nithin Chandran and Ms. Sumbul Ismail, Advocates
For the Opp. Parties:Mr. Pravin Bahadur and Mr. Snehil Srivastav, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
(1) Physical Possession – a person will not like to take physical possession of his Unit after having made the entire payment which was also a substantial amount.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(a)(i)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58(1)(a)(i)] – Services – Real Estate – Complaint filed for the alleged delay in delivery of possession of flats – Whether there is inordinate delay – Whether Complainant is entitled for a fair and reasonable delay compensation – The Opposite Parties issued possession letter dated 07.12.2017 after obtaining the Occupancy Certificate – There has been definitely an inordinate delay of more than 3 years from the revised date of possession for obtaining the Occupancy Certificate and offering possession for which the Opposite Parties have not given any reasonable justification – The Occupation Certificate was only received in 2017. The Opposite Party has not given any reasonable justification for this delay also. Therefore, the Complainant is entitled for a fair and reasonable delay compensation – the Consumer Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties/builder is directed to pay delay compensation @6% per annum to the Complainant on the amount deposited by him from the revised date of possession i.e. 29.09.2014 till 09.05.2019 i.e. the date when the possession letter of the Unit. [Paras 19 to 21].
Result: Compliant partly allowed.
ORDER
Binoy Kumar, Member.—The present Consumer Complaint has been filed under Section 21(a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) by Mr. Vikas Mittal (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) against the Opposite Parties, M/s DLF Universal Limited and Another (hereinafter referred to as the Opposite Parties) seeking delay compensation @12% per annum for delay in delivery of possession of the Apartment.
2. The brief facts leading upto the present Complaint are that the Complainant booked an Apartment (hereinafter referred to as the Unit) in the Project of the Opposite Party “DLF Capital Greens” situated at phase –II, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi. The Complainant paid Rs. 7,50,000/- as the booking amount as per application form dated 29.09.2009 and thereafter he was allotted Unit- CGM-074, 7th floor, Block M vide allotment letter dated 05.10.2009. The Opposite Party No. 1 i.e. DLF Universal Limited (hereinafter referred to as the OP-1) and the Complainant executed an Apartment Buyer’s Agreement dated 27.10.2010 (hereinafter referred to as the Agreement) wherein the total consideration of the Unit was mentioned as Rs.1,05,26,250/-. As per clause 11(a) of the Agreement the Unit was to be delivered within 36(thirty-six) months from the date of Application Form i.e. by 29.09.2012. The relevant portion of Clause 11(a) reads as under:
“The Company based on its present plans and estimates and subject to all just exceptions, endeavors to complete construction of the Said Apartment within a period of thirty six(36) Months from the date of Application unless there shall be delay or failure due to Force Majeure conditions and due to reasons mentioned in Clause 11(b) and 11(c) or due to failure of allottees to pay in time the Total Price and other charges, taxes, deposits, securities etc and dues/payments or any failure on the part of the Allottee to abide by all or any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement”
3. The Complainant submitted that after collecting substantial amount, OP-1 vide letter dated 19.07.2012 extended the time period by 16(Sixteen) months and consequently clause 11(a) of the Agreement was revised from 36 months to 52 months. Therefore, the revised proposed date of possession become 29.01.2014. However, possession was not offered even on the revised proposed date of possession. The Complainant further stated that OP-1 also gave him option to exit the project and claim refund with interest but he chose to continue.
4. The Complainant stated that the OP-1 vide letter dated 28.02.2013 informed him that total saleable area of the Unit stood increased to 1565.74 sq. ft. In the circumstances, the total consideration of the Unit also stood increased by an amount of Rs.3,42,478/-. The Complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,26,85,022/- towards the consideration of the Unit. Therefore, no dues remained payable by him towards the Unit. The DLF Home Developers Limited (hereinafter referred to as the OP-2) vide letter dated 29.06.2017 informed him that Occupation Certificate has been received by it and he was requested to complete the remaining formalities to enable it to handover the possession of the Unit.
5. The Complainant stated that in response to letter dated 29.06.2017 of OP-2 the Complainant vide e-mail dated 15.07.2017 sought clarifications in order to pay the balance dues to take possession. However, no response was received from OP-2. Thereafter the Complainant visited the office of Opposite Parties and deposited 10% of the balance amount. The Complainant further stated that Vide e-mail dated 01.12.2017, OP-2 admitted to delay in handing over the possession and stated that the possession could only be issued post the receipt of the clearance of account. The OP-2 vide e-mail dated 07.12.2017 informed the Complainant that the approval for the discount is in place and the possession letter for the Unit has also been issued. However, when the Complainant did not receive the possession letter, he requ
