Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member and Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Member
Radha V. Nair and Anr. – Appellants
versus
Chembur Estate Enterprises and Ors. – Respondents
First Appeal Nos.656, 657, 702 and 703 of 2015
Decided on 1.7.2022
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.21(b)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58(1)(b)] -Revision against order of State Commission - Services – Real Estate – Allotment of Flat – Delayed Possession - Pecuniary jurisdiction - Direction as per ready reckoner price – If justified - With regard to the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction is concerned, the Complaint was filed in the year 2015 and the cost of the flat was Rs.5,38,750/-, which was well within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission. The State Commission was, therefore, was well within its rights to entertain the Consumer Complaint - Further the Complainants/Appellants alleged that the State Commission erred in directing the Complainants to make balance payment as per current ready reckoner price. It is important to mention that the Complainants deposited 22.69% of the total cost of the flat in the year 1995-96. The State Commission equated the balance and held that the Complainants would be deemed to have paid 22.69% of today’s ready reckoner price. The State Commission also held that if the Complainants decline to pay the balance as worked out, they would be entitled to 22.69% of today’s ready reckoner price. The Complainants further alleged that they had been made to run from pillar to post for more than two and a half decades - State Commission has passed a well-reasoned order. The Complainants as well as the Opposite Party failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, which warrants interference in the Appellate jurisdiction. The First Appeals filed by the Complainants as well as the Opposite Party are hereby dismissed.
Held: As far as the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction is concerned, the Complaint was filed in the year 2015 and the cost of the flat was Rs.5,38,750/-, which was well within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission. The State Commission was, therefore, was well within its rights to entertain the Consumer Complaint. The submission of the Appellants/Complainants regarding pecuniary jurisdiction is rejected. Further the Complainants/Appellants alleged that the State Commission erred in directing the Complainants to make balance payment as per current ready reckoner price. It is important to mention that the Complainants deposited 22.69% of the total cost of the flat in the year 1995-96. The State Commission equated the balance and held that the Complainants would be deemed to have paid 22.69% of today’s ready reckoner price. The State Commission also held that if the Complainants decline to pay the balance as worked out, they would be entitled to 22.69% of today’s ready reckoner price. The Complainants further alleged that they had been made to run from pillar to post for more than two and a half decades. We find that the relief granted to the Complainant will compensate the delay. Moreover, the State Commission has also awarded cost of Rs.25,000/- each to the Complainants. In view of the above, we find that the State Commission has passed a well-reasoned order. The Complainants as well as the Opposite Party failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, which warrants interference in the Appellate jurisdiction. The First Appeals filed by the Complainants as well as the Opposite Party are hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. [Para 17, 18].
Result: Appeals dismissed.
ORDER
Aforesaid First Appeals have been filed against the order dated 1st July, 2015 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai (in short “the State Commission) in in CC/08/94 & CC/08/95, whereby the State Commission disposed of the Consumer Complaints filed by the Complainants.
2. Alongwith First Appeals Nos.656/2015 & 657/2015, the Appellants/Complainants have filed IAs 2339/2015 & 2340/2015 for condonation of delay of 1 day and 30 days respectively. Similarly, alongwith First Appeals Nos.702/2015 & 703/2015 the Appellants/Opposite Party No.1 has filed IA/6156/2015 & 6158/2015 for condonation of delay of 20 days each. However, as per report of the Registry, there is a delay of 35 days in FA/703/2015. For the reasons stated in the applications and in the interest of justice applications for condonation of delay are allowed and delay condoned.
3. Mrs. Radha V. Nair and Mrs. P. Jayalaxmi Nambiar are the Complainants. Chembur Estate Enterprises/Opposite Party No.1 is the Developer. Mr. Surojit Sengupta/Opposite Party No.1(a) is the then Director of Opposite Party No.1. Vikrant Construction/Opposite Party No.2 is a Construction Company and Mrs. Meena Vikas Raikar/Opposite Party No.1(b) is the Proprietress of Opposite Party No.2.
4. Case of the Complainants is that they booked two separate flats of 800 sq. ft. for a consideration of Rs.3,20,000/- each, which was subsequently revised to Rs.5,38,750/-. The Complainants paid 30% amount 11.10.1985 to 23.03.1986. On 13.01.1986, the Complainants were issued provisional allotment letters. Opposite Party No.1, vide letter dated 15.11.1986, intimated the Complainants that the project would be delayed and as soon as the project is completed, the flat would be delivered. On 07.06.1993, Opposite Party No.1 informed the Complainants that the plots in question were in recreational garden zone and the same could not be allotted. Opposite Party No.1, vide letter dated 24.03.1998, informed the Complainants that they would be allotted flats in another building proposed to be constructed and possession would be handed over within 18 months from the said date of offer. Opposite Party No.1,vide letters dated 21.06.2007 and 27.06.2007, allotted duplex apartments on 5th and 6th floor and sought escalation cost for duplex apartments. The Complainants, vide letter dated 14.02.2008, asked Opposite Party No.1 to furnish a copy of the Development Agreement between Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2. The Complainants sought copy of the Development Agreement dated 17th May, 2001 under Right to Information Act from the Office of the Sub-Registrar. From the Development Agreement the Complainant came to know that there was no provision for allotment of duplex flat. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainants filed Consumer Complaints before the State Commission. Prayer made in the Complaint filed by the Complainant Mrs. Radha V. Nair reads as follows:—
“(a) The Opposite Parties be directed to rectify the defects in their services as builders and developers and to get the plans sanctioned for construction of duplex flat admeasuring 1760 sq. ft. on the 5th and 6th floor of the said building along with terrace and stilt parking on the ground floor of the said building.
(b) In the alternative to prayer clause (a) above and in the event of the Opposite Parties are unable to get the plans sanctioned in respect of the duplex flat, then in that event the Opposite Parties be directed to provide identical flats admeasuring 1760 sq. ft. in favour of the Complainants by accepting the balance consideration payable vide MOU dated 23rd Aug. 1991 namely Rs.5,28,750/-.
(c) In the alternative to the above and by any reason if the Opposite Parties are unable to provide duplex flat on the 6th and 7th floor of the said building, then in that event the Opposite Parties be directed to provide flat of the same dimension on any floor of the said building or alt
(1) Justified Withholding of Payments – An allottee is not necessarily “at fault” for stopping installments if it is evident that the builder is nowhere near completing the project by the committed d....
Flat Buyer’s Agreement – Denial of timely possession despite substantial payment – Payment of interest on refund of principal amount is necessary.
The Consumer Protection Act applies to real estate transactions protecting consumers from deficiencies in service, affirming the State Commission's jurisdiction.
(1) Contract - A term of a contract, will not be final and binding if it is shown that the consent to the said term was not really voluntary, if the person giving consent had no other choice. (2) Nom....
One-sided contractual terms - Appellant-Builder cannot seek to bind the Respondent with such one-sided contractual terms.
Subsequent purchasers retain consumer rights under the Consumer Protection Act and can seek remedies for deficiencies in service from property developers.
The court established that failure to provide promised amenities and delays in possession constitute unfair trade practices, entitling homebuyers to compensation and punitive interests under consumer....
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
