Back
DEEPA SHARMA, SUBHASH CHANDRA
Sangeeta Agarwal – Appellant
Versus
Chintels India Ltd. – Respondent
ORDER
Subhash Chandra, Member.—This is a complaint under section 12 (1) (a) dated 16.11.2018 filed by the complainants alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the opposite party (M/s Chintels India Ltd.) and claiming refund of the money deposited towards the flat booked by them with the opposite party along with other damages.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant had booked a flat on 08.08.2013 by depositing a booking amount of Rs.22,23,690/- in the project ‘Chintels Serenity’, Sector 109, Gurugram, Haryana, being developed by the opposite party. As per the allotment letter dated 19.08.2013 issued by the opposite party, flat no. E – 601, 6th Floor, Tower E, in the said project with super area of 2100 sq ft was allotted to the complainants at a total sale consideration of Rs.1,64,09,050/-. An Apartment Buyer’s Agreement was executed between the two parties on 06.05.2014 wherein, as per clause 11 of the agreement, the possession of the flat was promised by the opposite party to the complainants after a period of 36 months with six months grace period, i.e., by 17.01.2018. The payments were to be made stage wise and by 22.07.2015 the complainants
Consumer - 50% payment upfront for a discount - The mere contention that complainants paid 50% payment upfront for a discount itself cannot be a reason to exclude the complainants from the scope of s....
Delays in possession of real estate mandate full refund to consumers under the Consumer Protection Act.
Committed date - the committed date has to be reckoned from the date of the sanction of building plans which includes the date of approval of the fire safety scheme.
Arbitration Clause - An arbitration clause in the Agreement does not bar the jurisdiction of the consumer fora to entertain the complaint.
Default by Contractors - Complainant cannot be made to suffer on account of default by contractors engaged by OP.
Consumer rights include timely possession and refund in cases of inordinate delays by builders, ensuring protections under consumer law are maintained.
Installment – Once the instalments were collected, the buyers are sought to be non-suited on a multitude of grounds, primarily the liability of the Government in not providing infrastructure and to c....
The court held that the delay in possession does not constitute a deficiency in service, provided the developer adheres to the agreed timeline including permissible grace periods.
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
