NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member
Narender Chopra – Complainant
versus
M/s. Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. – Opp. Party
Consumer Case No.3258 of 2017
Decided on 18.5.2022
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b) [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58(1)(b)] – Services – Real Estate – 95 % Sale Price – No excuse for completion of Project - Compliant filed for alleged delay in delivery of possession - As per allotment letter dated 12.02.2011, possession had to be delivered within 36 months, complete in all respect, with grace period of 90 days. Allotment letter also contained Payment Plan, under which, Rs. 974896/- was payable at the time of allotment, Rs. 8486115/- was payable on or before 12.03.2011 and remaining amount of Rs. 956869/- was payable on offer of possession. As per demand, the complainant deposited Rs .8702328/- on 11.03.2011, Rs.10300/- on 03.08.2011 and Rs. 18389/- on 01.04.2013 (total Rs. 9731017/- out of sale price of Rs. 10123430). After taking payment of about 95% of sale price in March, 2011, the builder has no excuse for not completing the construction. Even the period during which the construction was stopped under order of National Green Tribunal is excluded, possession ought to have been delivered before filing of the complaint – Thus, home buyer cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of the flat allotted to him - complaint is allowed with cost of Rs.one lakh. The opposite party is directed to refund entire amount deposited by the complainant with interest @9% per annum from the date of respective deposit, till the date of actual payment. [Para 9, 10]
Result: Compliant allowed with cost.
ORDER
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member.—Heard Mr. Prabhakar Tiwari, Advocate, for the complainant and Mr. Sudhir Makkar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Sumeet Sharma, Advocate, for the opposite party.
2. Ms. Narinder Chopra has filed above complaint, for directing the opposite party (i) to refund entire amount of Rs.9731017/- with interest @18% per annum, from the date of deposit till the date of refund, (ii) to pay Rs.10/- lacs as compensation for mental agony and harassment, (iii) to pay Rs.2/- lacs, as cost of litigation and (iv) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
3. The complainant stated that M/s. Jaiprakash Associates Limited (the opposite party) (the developer) was a company, registered under Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of development and construction of residential and commercial building and selling its unit to the prospective buyers. The developer launched a project of group housing in the name of “Knight’s Court” at Sector-128, Noida, in the year 2010 and gave attractive advertisements. The complainant booked a flat and deposited Rs.10/- lacs on 22.12.2010. She was allotted Flat No. KGT 6-701, super area 2070 sq.ft. and one car parking space in “Knight’s Court”, for sale price of Rs.10123430/- on 12.02.2011. As per allotment letter, possession had to be delivered within 36 months, complete in all respect, with grace period of 90 days. Allotment letter also contained Payment Plan, under which, Rs.974896/- was payable at the time of allotment, Rs.8486115/- was payable on or before 12.03.2011 and remaining amount of Rs.956869/- was payable on offer of possession. As per demand, the complainant deposited Rs.8702328/- on 11.03.2011, Rs.10300/- on 03.08.2011 and Rs.18389/- on 01.04.2013 (total Rs.9731017/-). Promised date of possession expired on 12.02.2014 but construction of the project was delayed. The complainant personally enquired about delivery of possession time to time but some imaginary time was informed in this respect time to time. The complaint was filed on 06.11.2017, complaining deficiency in service on the part of developer.
4. The opposite party filed Written Reply on 14.03.2018, in which, material facts have not been disputed. It has been stated that due to shortage of labour, scarcity of water, restriction in excavation, villager’s agitation against acquisition of land, legal impediments as well as economic slowdown, the construction of the project was delayed. As per Clause-7.1, of Standard Terms and Condition, contained in allotment, the period during which, the construction was delayed due to force majeure was liable to be excluded and the developer was entitled for extension of that period. The complainant was duly informed about the delay in construction vide letter dated 09.09.2014. State of U.P. initially delayed in handing over possession of the land in the year 2012. Government of U.P. vide order dated 29.08.2014, directed for payment of additional incentive of 64.7% to the farmers and restricted the developer from entering the land parcels. National Green Tribunal, vide order dated 11.01.2013, restrained all the builder of Noida & Greater Noida from extracting ground water. National Green Tribunal, vide interim order dated 14.08.2013, restrained construction work within radius of 10 km from Okhla Bird Sanctuary, which was extended on 17.09.2013. Final order was passed on 03.04.2014 in above matter and restriction on construction was continued. The developer filed an application for review of the order dated 03.04.2014, which was rejected by National Green Tribunal vide order dated 30.05.2014. The developer challenged the orders in Civil Appeal No.5822-5823 of 2014, which was dismissed on 10.06.2014. Eco-sensitive zone of Okhla Bird Sanctuary was notified on 19.08.2015. The builder was paying delayed compensation in terms of Clause-7.2 of Standard Terms and Conditions. Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.744 of 201
Fortune Infrastructure v. Trevor D’ Lima
95 % Sale Price – No excuse for completion of Project - After taking payment of about 95% of sale price in March, 2011, the builder has no excuse for not completing the construction.
Consumer rights protect buyers from undue delays in property possession, ensuring timely refunds with interest.
Member - the complaint by registered society is maintainable even if the consumer is its member or not
(1) Jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is not barred merely because there is a Clause of Arbitration in the Agreement entered into between the parties.(2) Opp.....
Pecuniary jurisdiction – it is clear that for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction, the value of services hired or availed plus compensation shall be the value for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdict....
1) Arbitration Clause in the Agreement does not bar jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora to entertain the Complaint2) No hesitation in holding that terms of Apartment Buyer’s Agreement were wholly one-s....
IMPORTAN POINT Grace Period - Developer is entitled for benefit of the grace period only in the event of delay happening on accounts of the reasons which the parties could not have foreseen at the ti....
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.