Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member
Gautam Jambotkar and Anr. – Complainants
versus
Maruthi Corporation Ltd. and Ors. – Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No.152 of 2012
Decided on 7.1.2022
For the Complainants:Mr. Sanjay K. Shandilya, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties:Mr. S. Suman and Mr. K. Ram Reddy, Advocates
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58] – Services – Real Estate – Complaint filed for alleged delay in Completion of Project on premise of recession and political turmoil – Builder gave proposal for settlement, they were ready to return, entire principal amount deposited by the complainants of Rs.101/- lacs in 6 two monthly instalments and first instalment of Rs. 11/- lacs till 03.02.2020 – If any directions can be given – The opposite parties are directed to refund entire amount of Rs.10140068/- along with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of each deposit till actual payment, in four equal quarterly instalments. First instalment shall be paid on or before 15.02.2022. Thereafter, instalments shall be paid within three months, after payment of previous instalment. On receiving two instalments, the buyers will execute a sale deed of the plots sold to them by the builder. In case, the opposite parties commits default in payment of the instalment, then, it shall be opened to the complainants to realise entire amount, as stated above, by initiating proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Thus, compliant is allowed. [Para 5].
Held: Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5614 of 2015 Dr. Ramakrishna Velamati and another Vs. M/s. Maruthi Corporation Limited and another (decided on 29.07.2021) arising out of same project, directed the builder to refund entire amount of Rs.14616217/- along with interest @ 9% per annum, in four equal quarterly instalments. On receiving two instalments, the buyers were directed to execute sale deed of the plot in favour of the builder.
Result: Complaint is allowed.
ORDER
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member.—Heard Mr. Sanjay K. Shandilya, Advocate, for the complainants and Mr. S. Suman, Advocate and Mr. K. Ram Reddy, for the opposite parties.
2. The complainants filed the aforementioned complaint for directing the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the builder) (i) to refund a sum of Rs.10140068/- along with interest @15% per annum, from the date of respective deposits till its payment, (ii) to pay Rs.25/- lacs as the compensation for mental agony and harassment and (iii) to pay any other order, which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The facts, in short, as stated in the complaint are that the builder was a company, engaged in the business of development and construction of residential and commercial buildings and selling its unit to the prospective buyers. In the year 2007, the builder launched a project of township in the name of “Maruthi Heritage Park” on Survey Nos. 24, 25/1, 25/1 and 25/3, village and gram panchayat Annaram, mandal Faruqnagar, district Mhahbubnagar, Andra Pradesh. The complainants are husband and wife and were residing in USA. On coming to know about this project, the complainants met the opposite parties in March, 2007 and discussed about the project. The opposite parties assured that the project would be started in September, 2007 and would be completed within 4 years. The complainants decided to purchase plot numbers 240 and 247 (area 500 sq.yards), which were adjoining plots in the layout of the project. The complainants booked 240 and 247 (area 500 sq.yards, built up area 3000/- sq.ft., basic sale price Rs.65/- lacs) in this project on 23.01.2007 and deposited US$45270/- equivalent to Rs.1996186/-. The complainants deposited US$45270/- equivalent to Rs.1995281/- 21.02.2007, US$89867/- equivalent to Rs.3648600.20/- on 30.05.2007. K. Sesha Sai (opposite party-3) visited USA and met the complainants in Redmond, WA, USA around late 2007 and proposed that if an additional amount of Rs.16/- lacs was paid to him, the builder would construct a full residential unit on the second plot also. A sale deed was executed on 09.01.2008, in this respect. The complainants then paid Rs.1500000/- on 25.02.2008, Rs.1000000/- on 02.08.2008. The complainants received a letter from opposite party-5 on 21.01.2009, informing about the change of the project layout, house design and name of the project. Pradeep Sharma, attorney of the complainants visited the site in February, 2009 and found that on the spot no work was done. The complainants inquired on 07.01.2010, about the progress of the project. The opposite parties through email dated 26.01.2010, informed that due to recession and political turmoil, the project was being delayed. The complainants were not satisfied with the reply of opposite parties as such they sent a legal notice dated 02.12.2010, for refund of the money deposited by them along with interest @ 15% per annum. In spite of service of the legal notice, the builder did not refund the money. Then the complaint was filed on 30.05.2012.
4. The builder filed its written reply on 19.11.2012, in which, material facts have not been denied. It has been stated that the builder had not entered into any agreement for construction nor received any money for it. The change in layout was made in order to revamp the whole project and to make it more attractive and also for compliance of new norms of Township Development, as issued by Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, in July, 2008. New sets of house designs were added. Several buyers committed default in payment and the norms of Township Development was changed, due to which the project was delayed. The complainants were also defaulters, inasmuch as they had to pay Rs.130/- lacs, as such, they cannot allege deficiency in service on the part of the builder. The builder is committed to complete the project but due to downfall in economy, the project is being delayed.
5. The buil
