SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member and Subhash Chandra, Member
Sonal Randhwa and Anr. – Complainants
versus
DLF Universal Ltd. – Opp. Party
Consumer Case No.1712 of 2018
Decided on 13.7.2022

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainants:Mr. Sonat Tokas, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:Mr. Aditya P.N. Singh, Mr. Abhishek S. and Mr. Dhrohn Garg, Advocates

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.21(b)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58(1)(b)] - Services – Real Estate – Allotment of Flat – Delayed Possession - Complaint filed for alleged demand of Addational amount account of increase in the super area of the apartment - Whether demand is justified - The Opposite Party is entitled to the additional demand on account of increase in the super area of the apartment - The Opposite Party shall be entitled for the car parking charges, if applicable - The Opposite Party shall be entitled for the club charges, if applicable - The allottees shall be entitled to early payment rebate and timely payment rebate, if they have complied with the terms on which the said rebates were offered by the Developer or wherever the benefit of the said rebates was extended to them, either by the developer itself or by this Commission, if applicable - The Opposite Party shall pay compensation in the form of simple interest @ 6% p.a. from the expected date of delivery of possession till the date on which the possession was actually offered to the allottees – Complaint disposed off. [Paras 6 to 8].

Result: Complaint disposed off.

ORDER (ORAL)

The admitted facts of the case are that the Complainants had booked a unit in the project of the Opposite Party called “DLF Capital Greens” situated at 15, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi. The Complainants were issued an allotment letter dated 08.10.2009. They were allotted apartment No.CGR041 with two parking slots bearing parking No.PR3001 and PR3002. An Apartment Buyer’s Agreement was executed between the parties on 30.03.2010. The total consideration amount of the unit was Rs.2,64,00,000/-. The Opposite Party unilaterally extended the delivery date of the apartment. The Opposite Party sent a letter dated 28.02.2013 to the Complainant making demand of Rs.21,02,316/-. The Complainants have alleged that they had objected to such a demand. They learnt that this demand had been made on account of increase in the super area of the unit. On these contentions, the present Complaint had been filed and several reliefs had been sought on behalf of the Complainants.

2. The Complaint has been contested by the Opposite Party. They have justified their action and have submitted that the delay had occurred on ground of several necessary approvals on the part of the competent authorities and several other reasons beyond their control. It is further contended that the Complainant has already been offered possession and they have not come forward to make the complete payment and take possession. On these contentions, it is submitted that the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3. Parties led their evidences and filed written synopsises. We have heard the arguments and perused the relevant record.

4. During the course of arguments, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties submit that this case is covered under the order of this Commission in “Capital Greens Flat Buyer Association vs. DLF Universal Limited & Anr. decided on 03.01.2020 wherein while allowing the Complaint, following directions were issued:—

“37. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the complaints are disposed of with the following directions:—

(i) The OP is entitled to the additional demand on account of increase in the super area of the apartments.

(ii) The OP is not entitled to car parking charges.

(iii) The OP is not entitled to club charges.

(iv) The allottees shall be entitled to early payment rebate and timely payment rebate, wherever they have complied with the terms on which the said rebates were offered by the developer or wherever the benefit of the said rebates was extended to them, either by the developer itself or by this Commission.

(v) The OP shall pay compensation in the form of simple interest @ 7% per annum from the expected date for delivery of possession till the date on which the possession was actually offered to the allottees. In case of subsequent purchasers, the period expected for the delivery of possession will be computed from the date of purchase by them.

If the possession was delayed solely on account of the allottee having not executed the Indemnity-cum-Undertaking, prescribed by the OP, the compensation in the form of simple interest @ 7% per annum shall be payable with effect from the expected date for delivery of possession till the date on which the consumer complaint by / on behalf of such an allottee was instituted. The compensation shall be paid within a period of three months from today.

(vi) The car parking charges and club charges wherever already paid to the developer shall be refunded to the concerned allottee within three months from today, failing which the said charges shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till the date of refund.

(vii) The conveyance deed in favour of the allottees shall be executed within three months from today, subject to payment of outstanding dues, if any, payable by the allottees to the developer, in terms of this order and the requisite stamp duty and registration charges.

(viii) In CC/351/2015 and CC/2047/2016, the developer shall pay Rs.50,000/- as the cos

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top