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

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member and Subhash Chandra, Member
Devender Bansal – Complainant
versus
M/s. Ansal Housing &
Construction Limited – Opp. Party
Consumer Case No.1623 of 2018
Decided on 13.7.2022

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Mr. Sushil Kaushik and Ms. Himanshi Singh, Advocates
For the Opp. Party:Mr. Attin S. Rastogi, Mr. Tapan Kr. Jha, Mr. Ashutosh Agarwal, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINT
Dotted lines - A term of a contract will not be final and binding if it is shown that that the flat purchasers had no option but to sign on the dotted line, on a contract framed by the builder.

Headnote:

(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.21(b)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58(1)(b)] - Services – Real Estate – Allotment of Flat – Delayed Possession - Complaint has been filed seeking refund of amount deposited – Extraction of ground water was banned in Gurgaon by Punjab and Haryana High Court – Whetehr can be termed as “Force Majeure” - The extraction of ground water was banned in Gurgaon by Punjab and Haryana High Court, therefore, construction was delayed cannot be a ground for Force Majeure because the opposite party could have used tankers and other sources to get water for the construction purpose and, therefore, this plea of Force Majeure is not a valid plea.

(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.21(b)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58(1)(b)] - Services – Real Estate – Allotment of Flat – Delayed Possession - Builder Buyer Agreement – “Dotted Lines” - Incorporation of one sided clauses - A term of a contract will not be final and binding if it is shown that that the flat purchasers had no option but to sign on the dotted line, on a contract framed by the builder -Thus, such clauses are not binding and consumer forums have to award just and fair compensation – Complaint disposed off.

Held: Thus, as regards ban on the mining of sand in Haryana and Rajasthan is concerned, it is not such an act which was beyond the control of the opposite party or would have made it impossible for the opposite party to complete the construction because dust could have been obtained from other sources. [Para 12]

The opposite party shall refund the entire deposited amount of Rs.85,88,775/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposits till the date of payment.

(ii) The opposite party shall also pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards litigation cost.

(iii) The entire amount shall be paid within four months from the date of this order failing which the complainant shall be entitled for interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of each deposit till date of payment on the deposited amount. [Paras 18 to 20]

Result: Compliant disposed off.

ORDER

Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member.—The present complaint has been filed by the complainant seeking refund of his deposited amount of Rs.85,88,775/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposits till payment and also claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental agony and harassment along with other appropriate relief.

2. The case of the complainant is that opposite party in the year 2012 launched a Group Housing Scheme known as “Ansal Highland Park” in Sector 103, Gurgaon, Haryana. The project was widely advertised by the opposite party and on seeing the lucrative advertisement, the complainant approached the opposite party. It was projected to them that the apartment would be delivered within 48 months from the date of execution of the agreement. On this promise, the complainant applied for allotment of the apartment on 01.06.2012 and apartment no. Perth 0302 measuring 1762 sq. ft was allotted. He signed the Builder Buyer Agreement on 17.05.2013. The proposed date of possession was 17.05.2017. The total consideration of the apartment was Rs.88,81,936/-. The opposite party also provided the payment schedule and the complainant duly paid the instalments. The total amount paid by the complainant i.e. Rs.85,88,775/- also included the payment towards service tax etc. It is submitted that complainant had been regularly visiting the site and found that no one was present at the site and the construction was not in progress. Despite taking considerable amount, the apartment was never constructed and the site was abandoned piece of land having only skeleton structure of semi constructed building. The construction was not completed and the promise of delivery of possession within 48 months was never fulfilled by the opposite party. The apartment was booked by the complainant with the intention of using it as home for their family and themselves. As per clause 37 of the Builder Buyer Agreement, the opposite party had promised to pay compensation @ Rs.5/- per sq. ft. per month for the period of delay and it comes to Rs. 1.4% p.a. rate of interest. It is submitted that this is disproportionate to the interest which the money which was deposited by the complainant with the opposite party would have fetched had it been kept in bank or otherwise. It is submitted that since opposite party had failed to deliver the possession of the subject property even after expiry of several years, it amounts to deficiency in service and they should be directed to refund their money and award other compensation as prayed for.

3. Notice of the complaint was sent to the opposite party. The opposite party had filed its written statement. In the written statement, several preliminary objections have been raised by the opposite party. It is contended that this Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction. It is submitted that total basic price was inclusive of PLC, if any, and if we exclude EDC and IDC etc, said apartment was costing Rs.81,72,616/- and, therefore, this Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction. That the high rate of interest has been claimed with the intention to bring the case within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. It is further contended that complainant had booked the said apartment purely for commercial purpose. It is submitted that it was a sort of investment made by the complainant on the speculation of the price rise and it was for commercial gain. Complainant is, therefore, not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now repealed by Consumer Protection Act, 2019). It is further contended that as per clause 28 of the Flat Buyer Agreement, once the provisional allotment of the apartment is made, the complainant is not entitled for any refund. It is further submitted that as per clause 31 and 32 of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement, possession of the apartment was to be delivered within 48 months with 6 months grace period from the date of execution of the agreement or from the date of obtaining

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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top