NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member
Neeraj Chowdhary and Ors. – Complainants
versus
M/s. BPTP Ltd. and Ors. – Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No.737 of 2018
Decided on 25.5.2022
For the Complainant No.3:Mr. Navneet Kumar, Advocate along with Mr. Mukesh Bansal in Person
For the Opp. Parties:Mr. Pragyan Pradip Sharma and Ms. Nidhi Tewari, Advocates
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 12(1)(a) [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.35(1)(a)] – Services – Real Estate – Delay in delivery of possession of Flats / Apartment – Flat Buyer’s Agreement (FBA) - “Construction Link Payment Plan” - Compliant has been filed directing the opposite parties (i) to refund each and every buyer, the amount paid by him/her from respective date of deposit till the date of refund, in respect of the apartment booked - So far as the refund of amount under the “Subvention Plan” is concerned, for that purpose a tripartite agreement were executed between the complainants, HDFC and the builder. Under tripartite agreement, the complainants alone are liable to repay the loan of HDFC - Under Clause-5.1 a grace period of 180 days has also been provided, but the total period of 48 months have elapsed in July, 2017, but the constriction is not in progress on the spot except roof slab of basement – Thus, home buyer would be entitled for compensation in the shape of interest @9% per annum from the date of each deposit till the date of refund – The complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to refund entire amount deposited by the complainants with interest @9% pa. from the date of respective deposits. [Paras 15 to 18]
Result: Compliant allowed.
ORDER
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member.—Heard Mr. Navneet Kumar, Advocate, for the complainants and Mr. Pragyan Pradip Sharma, Advocate and Ms. Nidhi Tewari, Advocate, for the opposite parties.
2. Aforementioned complaint has filed for directing the opposite parties (i) to refund each and every buyer, the amount paid by him/her with interest @18% per annum, from respective date of deposit till the date of refund, in respect of the apartment booked by him/her in the project “Park Sentosa”, at village Nimka, Sector-77, tehsil and district Faridabad, (ii) to pay compensation to each and every buyer @ Rs.5/- per sq.ft. per month on ‘super area’, for the period of delay in offering possession of the flats booked by them, (iii) to pay Rs.5/- lacs, to each and every buyers, as compensation for mental agony and harassment, (iv) to pay Rs.50000/- to each and every buyers, as cost of litigation, (v) to award benefits of the subvention plan to the complainants, who had opted for the same, (vi) to impose appropriate penalty upon the opposite parties for indulging in unfair trade practice and (vii) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
3. The complainants filed IA/6125/2018 under Section 12 (1) (c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for grant of permission to file the complaint in representative capacity, which was allowed on 24.10.2018, after hearing the parties. Initially, 14 sets of flat buyers joined as the complainants. After publication of notice, Dr. Rajendra Kumar Agarwal, Mrs. Hemlata Agarwal and Ms. Garima Agarwal (allottees of Flat No.1806) filed IA/6897/2019, for their impleadment as the complainants, which was allowed on 26.04.2019. Mrs. Anju Kheterpal (allottee of Flat No.B-G001) filed A/3675/2020, for her impleadment as the complainant, which was allowed on 16.09.2020. Later on, Dr. Rajendra Kumar Agarwal, Mrs. Hemlata Agarwal and Ms. Garima Agarwal (allottees of Flat No.1806) (complainants-15 to 15-B) settled their claim with the opposite parties, out of court.
4. The complainants stated that the opposite parties were separate companies, incorporated under Companies Act, 1956 and have its registered office at M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. M/s. Countrywide Promoters Private Limited and M/s. Anjali Promoters & Developers Private Limited (opposite parties-2 and 3) owned of 13.187 acres land at village Nimka, Sector-77, tehsil and district Faridabad. They obtained License No.267 of 2007 dated 03.12.2007, from the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana, for development of township over the aforesaid land. Opposite parties-2 and 3 assigned the work of development, construction of building and selling its unit to the prospective buyers over the aforesaid land to M/s. BPTP Limited (opposite party-1). The opposite parties launched the project of group housing in the name of “Park Sentosa” over the aforesaid land and gave attractive advertisements in 2012. Basic sale price of a flat of ‘super built up area’ of 1646 sq.ft. was around Rs.8634905/- including other charges. The opposite parties prescribed four payment plans i.e. (i) Construction Linked Payment Plan, (ii) Down Payment Plan, (iii) Subvention Plan and (iv) Self-Funding Payment Plan. Under Subvention Plan, initial 15% of sale price was payable by the buyer, thereafter, 80% of sale price was payable by the HDFC Ltd. by way of loan and remaining 5% of sale price was payable by the buyer at the time of possession. The complainants and other buyers booked the flats in the year 2013-2014. Allotment letters were issued and Flat Buyer’s Agreements were executed during 2013-2014 by the opposite parties in favour of the complainants and other buyers.
5. A chart, giving date of provisional allotment, flat numbers, total sale price and amount paid by the complainants are given below:-
| Complainant No.(s) | Date of allotment | Apartment No. | Total Value of Apartment (in Rs.) | Total Amount paid till date (in |