Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member and Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Member
Abdul Rasheed Khan and Anr. —Complainants
versus
Mantri Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. —Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No.3855 of 2017
Decided on 1.7.2022
A. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 –S.21(1)(a)(i)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58(1)(a)(i)] – Services – Real Estate – Allotment of Flat – Delayed Possession – Stipulated / specified time - “Pre EMI Scheme” – Complaint has been filed for alleged delay in possession of Flat – Possession was to be given in January, 2015. The Occupancy Certificate of the flat was received on 29.05.2017. There was, thus, a delay of more than 2 years in offer of possession by Opposite Parties- Therefore when possession of the allotted plot/flat/house is not delivered within the specified time, the allottee is entitled to a refund of the amount paid, with reasonable Interest thereon from the date of payment till the date of refund - Consumer Complaint is partly allowed. Opposite Parties are directed to refund the entire amount of Rs.62,70,710/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the respective date of deposit of each amount till payment within a period of two month, failing which Opposite Parties would be liable to pay an interest rate of 12% p.a. on the same amount. [Para 18,19]
B. Consumer Protection Act, 1986—S.21(1)(a)(i)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 —S.58(1)(a)(i)] – Services – Real Estate – Allotment of Flat – Delayed Possession – “Force Majeure”- Blanket Plea - proof of - The Opposite Party took the ground that the flat in question could not be completed in stipulated time due to force majeure conditions. It is relevant to mention that in the written statement the Opposite Party had simply quoted para 6.4 of the development agreement. The Opposite Party had not specified as to what force majeure prevented them to complete the flat in stipulated time. The plea of force majeure is, therefore, not acceptable. [Para 17].
Result: Complaint partly allowed.
ORDER
The present Complaint is filed under Section 21(a)(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Opposite Parties seeking refund of the deposited amount alongwith compensation for delay in completing the housing project. Opposite Party No.1 is a private company engaged in the construction of Commercial and Residential Buildings and Opposite Party No.2 is the Chairman and Managing Director of Opposite Party No.1.
2. Opposite Party No.1 formulated a scheme for construction of the residential apartment building complex together with common amenities and facilities under the name ‘Mantri Webcity’. Opposite Parties published an advertisement offering luxurious integrated township at Nagareshwara Nagenahalliand Kothanur Villages, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk known as “MANTRI WEBCITY”. After seeing the advertisements, brochures and on the basis of the promises made by the Opposite Parties, Complainants entered into two separate agreements, one for purchase of undivided share in the land and the other for construction of the flat. It was promised by Opposite Parties that possession of the flat would be delivered on 31.01.2015. Complainants were allotted flat No.E-003 for a total consideration of Rs.63,98,064.18. Opposite Parties came out with a payment schedule known as Pre-EMI, whereby Complainants were to pay entire sale consideration for the flat upfront, before commencement of the Project. Complainants paid Rs.62,70,710/- as per following schedule:—
(a) Rs.6,33,409/- on 30.06.2013
(b) Rs.6,33,409/- on 22.07.2013
(c) Rs.50,03,892/- on 26.07.2013
On January 2015, the Opposite Parties revised date of completion of the Project to March, 2015, then to September 2015 and thereafter to 31.12.2015, and other subsequent dates on one ground or the other. As per the Pre EMI Scheme, the EMI was to be paid to the Bank by the Opposite Parties till the date of possession and it was only after the possession, the Complainants were to bear the same. Opposite Parties, however, without any reason stopped paying installments altogether after January 2015.
4. Opposite Parties, vide mail dated 30.06.2016, asked the Complainants to take possession on 01.07.2016. The Opposite Parties offered possession without completing the project and completion certificate. The Complainants filed Consumer Complaint No.1032 of 2016 in the District Forum seeking completion of Project and damages for various deficiencies. The District Forum, on 08.08.2017 returned the Complaint on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. The Opposite Party received the Occupancy Certificate on 29.05.2017. However, the Possession of the flat and its registration was refused by Opposite Parties, in May, 2017, in lieu of the pending Complaint in the Consumer Commission. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, Complainants filed the present Complaint with the following prayer:—
“A. Direct the respondent to refund the amount of Rs. 99,44,475/- as per his claim in para 25 above,
B. Award interest at the rate of 18% pa pendent lite and till the refund of the amount.
C. Award compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards mental agony,
D. Award the cost of the litigation,
E. And pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and necessary in the interest of justice.”
5. Opposite Parties resisted the Complaint by filing the written statement. They raised preliminary objections that the Complainants had initially filed a Complaint before the District Forum, Bangalore. District Forum, vide order dated 08.08.2017, returned the Complaint to file it before the appropriate Forum. Complainants had claimed Rs.17,03,393/- under different heads before the District Forum along with possession of the flat. Now the Complainants have claimed a sum of Rs.99,44.475/- with pendente lite interest @ 18% p.a. and compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with costs. The Complaint is, therefore, barred by the principle of res judicata for presenting two complaints on same cause of ac
Specified time - Therefore when possession of the allotted plot/flat/house is not delivered within the specified time, the allottee is entitled to a refund of the amount paid, with reasonable Interes....
Right to claim refund - the complainant in the present circumstances have a legitimate right to claim refund alongwith fair delay compensation/interest from the OP.
Unreasonable Delay - In a case of an unreasonable delay in offering possession, a buyer cannot be compelled to accept possession at a belated stage and is entitled to seek refund of the amount paid w....
(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....
(1) Possession – Directing possession of the apartment without the requisite certificates would be inappropriate and not in the interest of justice.(2) National Commission – National Commission deter....
Installment – Once the instalments were collected, the buyers are sought to be non-suited on a multitude of grounds, primarily the liability of the Government in not providing infrastructure and to c....
For failure of delivery of possession of flats within the stipulated, refund of amount directed.
Failure to deliver possession constitutes deficiency in service, validating consumer refunds with interest.
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
