NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
R.K. Agrawal, President
Mamta Maurya and Ors. —Complainants
versus
Jai Prakash Associates Ltd. and Ors. —Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No.405 of 2017
Decided on 22.3.2022
(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.12(1)(a) [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.35(1)(a)] – Services – Real Estate – Compliant filed alleging deficiency in service in not handing over the possession of the Units within stipulated period and seeking either possession with delayed compensation or refund of amount deposited by them along with reasonable interest and compensation – Whether the plea that some of the Complainants defaulted in making timely payment as per payment plan chosen by them, which ceased them to file the present complaint, if can be contented – OP Builder could have exercised options available under the Standard Terms and Conditions of the Application Form either to cancel the Agreement or charge delay interest. The OP Builder cannot take shelter under the lame excuse that the Complainant defaulted in making payment which ceased them to file the present Complaint. [Para 12].
(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.12(1)(a) [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.35(1)(a)] – Services – Real Estate – Whether contention of the OP Developer that they have closed the Allotment of some of the Complainants on their request of cancellation, can be sustained and deficiency of service can be attributed on OP’s – If the amounts deposited by the said Complainants are not refunded, it is a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the OP Developer because after accepting the request of cancellation the OP Developer cannot sleep over the matter for a long time. It is the duty and responsibility of the OP Developer to refund the amount to the said Complainants within a reasonable time – In the instant case, when the Project has not taken off, the OP Developer is duty bound to refund the amount to the said Complainants alongwith appropriate interest.
[Para 13].
(C) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.12(1)(a) [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.35(1)(a)] – Services – Real Estate – Compliant filed alleging deficiency in service in not handing over the possession of the Units within stipulated period and seeking either possession with delayed compensation or refund of amount deposited by them along with reasonable interest and compensation – Complainants cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of the Units. As a period of more than 12 years has lapsed from the date of allotment and the Project is still incomplete, therefore, the Complainants are entitled for refund of the respective deposited amount along with reasonable interest – OP Developer is directed to refund the entire deposited amount to the respective Complainants alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the respective date of deposit till the date of payment within a period of 3 months, Complaints partly allowed. [Paras 19, 24].
Result: Compliant partly allowed.
ORDER
R.K. Agrawal, President.—The present Consumer Complaint has been filed under Section 21(a)(i) read with Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act) by the Complainants/Allottees of the Units in the Residential Housing Project under the name and style “The Kove” located at Jay Pee green Sports City, Sector 25, Yamuna Expressway Industrial Authority Area, Dankaur, District Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter to be referred as the Project), by Opposite Party Jaiprakash Associates Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the OP Developer), inter alia, alleging deficiency in service in not handing over the possession of the Units within stipulated period and seeking either possession with delayed compensation or refund of amount deposited by them along with reasonable interest and compensation.
2. Since the interest of the Complainants and other Unit buyers in the aforesaid Project is the same and identical reliefs have been claimed on behalf of all the Complainants, IA No. 2155 / 2017, an Application under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act has also been filed with the Complaint to treat the Complaint as a class-action Complaint. Vide Order dated 18th September 2017, IA No. 2155 / 2017 was allowed and the Complaint was treated as filed under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act.
3. It has been averred in the Complaint that in the year 2010, Opposite Party Developer launched a Housing Project under the name and style of “The Kove” located at Jay Pee green Sports City, Sector 25, Yamuna Expressway Industrial Authority Area, Dankaur, District Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. Allured by the exaggerated advertisement and the assurances given by the authorised representatives of the OP Developer that there would be every modern facility in the Project and the physical Possession would be handed over within stipulated period, the Complainants booked respective residential Units in the said Project in the year 2010-2012 by filing up the Application Form but copy of the Forms were supplied to some of the Complainants only. The Application Forms contained the Standard Terms and Conditions which were to be followed by both the Parties. It is further averred that certain terms and conditions mentioned in the Application Form were unfair and biased. Complainants were allotted distinct Units through Provisional Allotment letters by the OP Developer. In the Provisional Allotment letters, it was assured that the possession of the booked Units would be handed over within a period of 42 months. It was alleged that at the time of issuance of Provisional Allotment Letters, when the Complainants asked the OP Developer to execute Builder Buyer Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the Agreement), they were assured that the Agreements would be executed soon and the legal Department of the OP Developer is in the process of execution of the Agreement. During the passage of time when the Agreements were not executed, on enquiry made by the Complainants, the OP Developer kept delaying execution of Agreement on one pretext or the other. Despite several repeated requests and having received a lot of money from the Complainants, the OP Developer had not executed the Agreement with them till the date of filing of the Complaint. Relying upon the name and reputation of the OP Developer, the Complainants kept on depositing the amount as per demand made by the OP Developer against the payment receipts as well as Statement of Account issued by the OP Developer. Some of the Complainants have obtained Housing Loan from several financial institutions in order to make the timely payment to the OP Developer. It was also stated that in some cases, even the late payment charges @18% p.a. were also deposited alongwith demanded amount in case of late payment. The details of the Complainants, Unit Allotted, Amount deposited and expected date of de
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.