Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
R.K. Agrawal, President and Dinesh Singh, Member
M/s. Skycity Builders & Promoters
Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
versus
Seema Singhal and Ors. – Respondents
First Appeal No.1253 of 2018
(Against the Order dated 27/03/2018 in Complaint No.289/2017 of the State Commission Punjab)
Decided on 11.1.2022
(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58] – Services – Real Estate – Appeal is filed against order of State Commission whereby Compliant was allowed and OP was directed to refund Rs.36,00,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% p.a. – Whether Complainant is a ‘Consumer’ as defined under Section 2 (1)(d) of the Act – Appellant Builder had failed to discharge by filing any documentary evidence to establish its case – Therefore, Complainant is a ‘Consumer’ as defined under Section 2 (1)(d) of the Act. [Para 9].
(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58] – Services – Real Estate – Completion Certificate – Whether Builder can force to accept possession without completion certificate – It is the duty of the Appellant Builder to obtain the Completion Certificate from the concerned Competent Authority and only after that they should deliver the possession. The Appellant Builder cannot force the Complainants to accept the possession in the absence of Completion Certificate – Completion Certificate could not be received till the date of filing of the Appeal – Thus, The Complainants cannot be made to wait indefinitely for valid possession. [Para 10].
(C) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58] – Services – Real Estate – Refund for amount deposited – Quantum of Compensation for alleged delay in delivery of possession – if both can be granted – Complainants are entitled for refund of the deposited amount – Complainants are also entitled for Rs.4,12,000/- towards Assured Return in terms of the Unit Buyer Option Agreement Return Plan entered between the Parties, according to which the Complainants were entitled for assured return @12.5% p.m. on Rs.36 lakh deposited by them, i.e., Rs.37,500/- per month till offer of possession or 24 months, whichever is earlier, in this case by 16.09.2016 – Appellant/OP-1 Builder is directed to refund a sum of Rs.36,00,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 16.09.2016, i.e., the date of offer of possession – Appellant/OP-1 Builder is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,12,000/- received by the Complainants as an Assured Return and adjusted by the Appellant in its account. [Paras 10 to 14].
Result: Appeal allowed.
ORDER
R.K. Agrawal, President.—The present Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 27.03.2018 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred to as “State Commission”), whereby the Complaint filed by the Complainants was allowed and M/s. Skycity Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Opposite Party No. 1’) was directed to refund Rs.36,00,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till realization as per Rule 17 of the PAPRA; pay a sum of Rs.4,12,000/- received by the Complainant as an Assured Return to OPs and adjusted by the OPs in the account of OPs; pay Rs.1,00,000/- compensation for mental agony and harassment and pay Rs.21,000/- towards litigation expenses.
2. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the Complaint are that the Opposite Party No. 1 had launched a Shopping Complex Project under the name and style of “City Heart” (hereinafter referred to as the Project) at NH-21, Chandigarh-Kharar Road, Kharar. Alluring by the advertisements and the pictures shown of the Project by the Opposite Party, the Complainants entered into an agreement with Opposite Party No. 1 to purchase Shop-cum-Office (hereinafter referred to “SCO”) No. 84/B measuring 16X66 Sq. ft. 1056 Sq. ft. on First Floor of the Project to establish their shop for earning their livelihood. The Agreement was executed on 28.04.2015 at a settled consideration of Rs.52,05,100/-. Another Agreement titled ‘Unit Buyer Option Agreement Assured Return Plan’ was also entered between the Opposite Party No. 1/Builder and the Complainants on 04.05.2015 for providing assured return @12.5% p.a. on received amount of Rs.36 lakh, i.e., Rs.37,500/- per month till the offer of possession or 24 months, whichever was earlier. The Complainants had made the payment of Rs.40,12,500/- till 31.03.2016. After adding assured return, i.e., a sum of Rs.37,500/- per month which was due from the Opposite Parties till the date of possession, the Complainants have paid a sum of Rs.44,62,500/-. The Project was to be completed within 21 months period. However, Opposite Party No. 1 wrote a letter dated 16.09.2016, which contains a Maintenance Agreement to show that the possession of the shop has been given to the Complainants but the said Agreement is neither signed by the Complainant nor they have taken the possession of the shop in question. There is another letter dated 21.11.2016, vide which Opposite Party No. 1 had demanded the amount within 15 days without making reference to any particular amount stating that since your Unit is ready for possession and in case the payment is not made within 15 days, booking will be cancelled. The Complainant visited many times to the Office of the Opposite Party No. 1 Builder for getting the possession of the SCO, but Opposite Party/Builder could not give any satisfactory reply to the query regarding Completion Certificate. It was averred that even the Opposite Party No. 1 Builder could not get Completion Certificate from Opposite Party No. 2, Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as OP No. 2 GMADA) till the date of filing of the Complaint. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, Consumer Complaint was filed before the State Commission seeking directions to Opposite Party to refund the amount of Rs.44,62,500/- alongwith interest @18% p.a. from the date of respective payments; to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for unnecessary harassment and mental tension and agony and other sufferings and Rs.55,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. The Opposite Parties contested the Complaint by filing their written version before the State Commission. The Opposite Party No. 1 Builder took preliminary objection that the Complaint is not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction; the Complainants have concealed the material facts. Project was approved by GMADA/PUDA. Requisit
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
