DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, (President) and Rajan Sharma, Member (Judicial)
Mr. Rahul Jain —Complainant
versus
Parsvnath Developers Ltd. —Opp. Party
Complaint Case No.111 of 2013
Decided on 8.3.2022

IMPORTANT POINT
Commercial Purpose – Mere allegation, that the purchase of the property is for commercial purpose, cannot be the ground to reject the present consumer complaint.

Headnote:

(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 17 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 47(1)] – Services – Real Estate – Jurisdiction of State Commission – Compliant has been filed for alleged delay in possession of flats – Whether The Complainant Falls Under The Definition of ‘Consumer’ As Per The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Mere allegation, that the purchase of the property is for commercial purpose, cannot be the ground to reject the present consumer complaint. [Para 12].

Held: In the present case, the Opposite Party has merely made a statement that the Complainant purchased the flat for commercial purpose and on perusal of the record court fails to find any material which shows that the Complainant is engaged in the business of purchasing and selling houses and/or plots on a regular basis, solely with a view to make profit by sale of such flats.

(ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 17 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 47(1)] – Services – Real Estate – Jurisdiction of State Commission to adjudicate complicated questions of fact – the complaint falls within the four corners of the jurisdiction of this commission and there is no bar with respect to the jurisdiction of this commission to entertain cases related to the refund of amount deposited with the Opposite Party – Opposite Party failed to honour the terms of the agreement, aggrieved by which, the Complainant has approached this commission. Hence, the Complainant is entitled to file the present complaint before this commission since the Complainant is aggrieved by the deficient services of the Opposite Party i.e. the failure of the Opposite Party to handover the possession within a reasonable time period and it is only due to this reason, that the Complainant has approached this Commission, which this Commission is authorized to adjudicate. [Paras 17 to 20]

Held: Moreover, nothing cogent has been brought on record by the Opposite Party which would reflect that there are such complicated questions involved which cannot be settled on the basis of the pleadings filed on behalf of the contesting parties.

(iii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 17 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 47(1)] – Services – Real Estate – Contention that Complainant failed to make the payments prescribed as per the construction linked payment plan opted, despite service of various reminder letter – Cancellation made on basis of an unsigned/unexecuted agreement – Whether can be held to be valid – On perusal of the records and documents, we noted that no Provisional Allotment Letter dated 23.02.2007 has been produced by either party and the builder buyer agreement attached with the complaint is unsigned and undated, having only few details filled by the opposite party – Therefore, the agreement, Annexure ‘B’ attached with the complaint, cannot be taken into consideration in any manner as it has no evidentiary value – Therefore, the cancellation on relying upon the basis of an unsigned/unexecuted agreement is not valid and the opposite party is under the liability to refund the amount, already deposited by the Complainant for the apartment in question. [Para 22]

(iv) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 17 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 47(1)] – Services – Real Estate – Whether the Opposite Party was actually deficient in providing its services to the complainant or not – On facts, the unsigned/unexecuted agreement between the parties, however, as per the first payment receipt dated 02.05.2006, issued by the Opposite Party in favor of the complainant, clearly shows that the first payment in regard to the said apartment in question has been made in the year 2006 – However, till date the possession of the Apartment has not provided by the Opposite Party to the Complainant. Moreover, it has been well settled that the Complainant cannot be expected to wait for an indefinite time period to get the benefits of the hard earned money which they have spent in order to purchase the property in question – Therefore, Opposite Party is deficient in providing its services to the Complainant as the Opposite Party had given false assurance to the complainant with respect to the time for delivery of possession of the apartment and had kept the hard earned money of the complainant for about 16 years – Thus, opposite party has also arbitrarily cancelled the allotment of the complainant and forfeited an amount equivalent to 15% of the basic price, which is not justified in the present case. [Paras 24 to 28]

Held: In addition to the aforesaid and taking into consideration the facts of the present case, the Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of:

A. Rs. 1,00,000/- as cost for mental agony and harassment to the complainant; and

B. The litigation cost to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-.

Result: Complaint allowed.