Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member
Society for Consumer Justice – Complainant
versus
Logix Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. – Opp. Party
Consumer Case No.440 of 2019
Decided on 21.4.2022
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.12(1)(a)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.35(1)(a)] – Services – Real Estate – Allotment of Flat – Maintainability of Compliant by registered Society – Not being a consumer - Society for Consumer Justice (the complainant) has filed the above complaint under Section 12(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, redressing the grievances of allottee – Whether complaint by registered society is maintainable even if the consumer is its member or not - Thus, the complaint by registered society is maintainable even if the consumer is its member or not - Thus, valuation of all the flats which were subject matter of the complaint have to be counted for the purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction. If the valuation of Flat Nos.-K-508 and K-1608 along with compensation claimed in the complaint are taken together, it would exceed Rs.one crore, i.e. pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission and a purchaser steps in the shoes of original allottee with his all the rights and liability – Thus the preliminary objections raised by the opposite party have no force. [Para 9]
(ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.12(1)(a)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.35(1)(a)] – Services – Real Estate – Allotment of Flat – delay in handing over possession – Triparte Agreement not disputed - The builder has no justification to delay the possession – Thus, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to offer possession of Flat - While offering possession, the opposite party shall pay compensation to the aforesaid allottees in the shape interest @6% per annum on their deposit, including the deposit made by their predecessor, from due date of possession, till the date of offer of possession. The compensation due and payable in terms of this order shall be adjusted, in the demand of the opposite party, which will be raised strictly in accordance with the terms of the Builder-Buyers Agreement executed between the parties. There shall be no escalation in the cost of construction unless otherwise permitted under the Builder Buyers Agreement - The opposite party shall also pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as the cost of litigation to the complainant. [Para 10, 11]
Result: Compliant allowed.
ORDER
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member.—Heard Mr. Rajiv Dalal and Mr. Shivam Dahiya, Advocates, for the Complainant as well as Mr. Dhananjai Jain, Advocate, for the opposite party.
2. The Society for Consumer Justice (the complainant) has filed the above complaint under Section 12(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, redressing the grievances of Mr. Sandeep Purohit (allottee of Flat No.K-508) and Anirudh Sharma (allottee of Flat No.K-1608) in the project “Blossom County” GH 02, Sector 137, Expressway, Noida. In the complaint following prayers have been made:-
“(a) Direct the opposite party to handover the possession of the aforesaid apartments complete in all respects to the buyers immediately as per the buyer’s agreement and execute all the necessary and required documents in respect of their respective apartments in favour of the buyers.
(b) Direct to return the amount paid by home buyers with 24% interest as from specified that being February 13, 2013 as reflected in the tripartite agreement plus the amount paid at instalments to ICICI Bank with 24% interest.
(c) Direct to return the amount paid by home buyers with 24% interest as from specified that being 25/05/2012 as reflected in the tripartite agreement plus the amount paid at instalments to IDBI Bank with 24% interest.
(d) Direct to pay damages for mental harassment plus damages for personal and professional inconveniences caused since 2015 calculated at being equivalent to the complaint’s taxable income for the years 2014-15, 2015-16 And 2016-17 every year with 24% interest on the same.
(e) Direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.100000/- present complainant towards the cost of litigation.
(f) Grant immunity to the buyers from any escalation in cost/taxes and other charges that have arisen due to delay on the part of the OP and pertains to a period after 25/05/2012 in case of Mr. Sandeep Purohit and 13/02/2015 in case of Mr. Anirudh Sharma, which was promised date of possession.
(g) Any other order as may be deemed fit and appropriate may also kindly be passed.”
3. It has been stated in the complaint that Logix Infrastructure Private Ltd. (the opposite party) (the builder) was a company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of developing and constructing residential and commercial building and selling its unit to the prospective buyers. State of U.P. allotted about 100000 sq. mt. land at GH 02, Sector 137, Expressway, Noida to the opposite party, in the year 2010. The builder launched a project of group housing in the name of “Blossom County” on the aforesaid land. Sandeep Purohit applied for an allotment of the flat on 03.04.2010 and deposited the booking amount of Rs.290837/-. Thereafter, he was allotted Flat No.K-508 in “Blossom County”. Sandeep Purohit applied for grant of home loan to IDBI bank. The builder entered into a tripartite agreement dated 25.5.2010 with Sandeep Purohit with IDBI bank Ltd., on which a loan of Rs.3000000/- was sanctioned to Sandeep Purohit on 25.5.2010 and was paid to the opposite party time to time as per payment plan. The opposite party executed Builder Buyer Agreement dated 24.03.2010, in favour of Sandeep Purohit. As per demand, Sandeep Purohit deposited Rs.3291952/- upto 20.08.2012, which is proved from Statement of Account of Sandeep Purohit as maintained by the opposite party.
4. One Better Option Prompart Pvt. Ltd. got allotted Flat No.K-1608 (super area 1145 sq.ft, total sale price Rs.5324248/-) on 25.09.2012 from the opposite party. The opposite party executed Builder Buyer Agreement in favour of Better Option Prompart Pvt. Ltd. on 13.02.2013. With prior permission of the opposite party, Better Option Prompart Pvt. Ltd. sold Flat 1608, “Blossom County” to Anirudh Sharma on 15.04.2013. Better Option Prompart Pvt. Ltd. had deposited Rs.3229004 till 15.04.2013. Thereafter, Anirudh Sharma applied for grant of home loan to ICICI bank and tripartite agreement was executed bet
Member - the complaint by registered society is maintainable even if the consumer is its member or not
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.
Consumers have the right to timely possession and compensation for undue delays as established by precedents under the Consumer Protection Act.
(1) Earing profits - The onus of establishing that the Complainant was dealing in real estate i.e. in the purchase and sale of plots/ flats in his normal course of business to earn profits, shifts to....
“For non-delivery of subject unit within stipulated time period, Builder directed to refund the amount deposited.”
Delayed Compensation - The complainants are entitled for delayed compensation in the form interest @6% per annum on their deposit from 10.09.2015 to 21.02.2018 – On facts, the complaint is partly all....
“Allottees of Flats cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of their flats.”
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
