NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
R.K. Agrawal, President, Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member and Binoy Kumar, Member
Parklands Pride Buyers Association —Complainant
versus
BPTP Ltd. and Anr. —Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No.2035 of 2018
Decided on 14.2.2022

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Arbitration Clause – Arbitration Clause in the Agreement does not bar the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora to entertain the Complaint.
(2) Additional Amount – Developer is entitled to charge the additional amount on account of any increase in the Super/Built Up Area, if any.

Headnote:

(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.21, Section 2(d) with Section 2(m) – [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58] – Services – Real Estate – Compliant filed alleging deficiency in service on their part in not handing over the possession of the Apartment – Joint Complaint by Association if permissible under the Act – Reading Section 2(d) with Section 2(m), it becomes clear that every Association of Persons whether registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or not, can file a complaint before the Consumer Forum. In the present case, the Complainant Association is registered under the Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act, 2012. [Para 16].

(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.21, Section 2(d) with Section 2(m) – [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58] – Services – Real Estate – Increase in Built-up area – Whether Allottees can deny to pay charges on account of any increase in the area of the Built Up Area – In Clause 2.13 of the Agreement, it is mentioned that “the final Built-up Area of the Floor shall be determined after completion of construction of the Building consisting of three independent residential Floors. After accounting the changes, if any, on the date of possession, the final and confirmed area shall be incorporated in the Conveyance Deed. Any increase or decrease in the Built Up Area of the Floor shall be payable or refundable as the case may be without any interest – Therefore, Allottees cannot deny to pay the charges on account of any increase in the area of the Built Up Area – Developer is entitled to charge the additional amount on account of any increase in the Super/Built Up Area, if any. However, it is made clear that charging of additional amount on this account would be subject to any increase in the Built Up Area as prescribed in the terms and conditions of the Agreement. [Para 20].

Held: The Commission is of the view that, in terms of the provisions contained in Clause 2.3 of the Agreement, the Developer is justified in charging the amount on account of Preferential Location Charges as per the rates given thereof, Club Membership Charges, enhanced External Development Charges and Development Charges. However, we make it clear here that before demanding the aforesaid charges from the Allottees, the Developer shall furnish the details of all the charges to the Allottees and also give the reasons for enhancement of the charges, if any.

(C) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.21, Section 2(d) with Section 2(m) – [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58] – Services – Real Estate – Compliant filed alleging deficiency in service on their part in not handing over the possession of the Apartment – The only defence taken by the Developer for the delay of the Project is that there was confusion with regard to the Self-Certificate Scheme issued by the Town and Country Planning, Government of India on 16.03.2010 and the confusion was cleared by the concerned Department only in the year 2015, whether defense taken is justified and can be construed as a force majeure clause – The ground taken by Developer cannot be construed as a force majeure circumstance and there is deficiency in service on the part of the Developer – Apart from this, the Developer has failed to adduced any other documentary evidence justifying the delay in completion of the Project and handing over the possession to the Allottees. As such, the Allottees are entitled for a reasonable compensation on account of delay of 3 years in the completing the Project in question. [Para 21].

(D) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.21, Section 2(d) with Section 2(m) – [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58] – Services – Real Estate – Compliant filed alleging deficiency in service on their part in not handing over the possession of the Apartment – Right to seek refund of the amount deposited with the Developer – Allottes cannot be asked to wait indefinitely for handing over the possession of the booked Apartment, complete in all respects as per the terms and conditions of the Agreement – Therefore, if the Allottees are not interested to take the possession of their respective Apartments as the Project is still not complete they are very much within their right to seek refund of the amount deposited with the Developer with some reasonable compensation despite of the fact that no such prayer of refund has been made by them.

Result: Complaint disposed off.