NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member and Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Member
K. Madhusudhan Rao —Complainant
versus
M/s Lodha Healthy Constructions
& Developers Pvt. Ltd. (LHCPL)
and Anr. —Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No.150 of 2013
Decided on 1.7.2022

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Delayed Construction - There was no evidence of any lock-out or strike by the labour at the site of the project. There was no civil commotion, war, enemy action, terrorist action, earthquake or any act of God which could have delayed the construction of the project.
(2) Possession - A consumer cannot be kept to wait for taking possession of the apartment.

Headnote:

(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 - Complaint filed for alleged delay in possession of Flat – The preliminary objection of the Opposite Party, that the dispute in the Complaint is barred due to existence of contractual relation between the Parties, does not stand – It is settled law that the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy and is not curtailed due to any specific law – Therefore, the Complainant is a “Consumer” and the Complaint filed by the Complainant is maintainable. The Consumer Protection Act was enacted, inter alia, “to provide for better protection of the interest of the consumer”; to promote and protect the rights of consumers such as “the rights to seek redressal against unfair trade practices or unscrupulous exploitation of consumers”. [Para 14]

(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 – Refund of Amount - unforeseen and unexpected event – Proof of – The ground taken by the Opposite Party No. 1 that the delay was due to force majeure circumstances – “lock-out or strike by the labour” if can be ground for delayed possession – Deficiency of Service – The ground taken by the Opposite Party No. 1 that the delay was due to force majeure circumstances is devoid of merit – There was no evidence of any lock-out or strike by the labour at the site of the project. There was no civil commotion, war, enemy action, terrorist action, earthquake or any act of God which could have delayed the construction of the project. The Opposite Party merely narrated a set of events and obstacles which are routinely faced by project developers – The Opposite Party failed to prove that there was any unforeseen and unexpected event which prevented the completion of the Project within the stipulated time period - The Complainant paid substantial amount of total consideration – Therefore, homebuyers’ cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of the flat. Opposite Party No.1 failed to produce any evidence to the effect that the delay had occurred due to force majeure conditions – Thus, a consumer cannot be kept to wait for taking possession of the apartment. In these circumstances, the respondent flat purchaser was entitled for the relief prayed i.e. refund of the entire amount deposited alongwith compensation – Therefore, Opposite Party No.2 is deficient in service in disbursing the loan amount to Opposite Party No.1 without verifying the stage of construction - Complaint is partly allowed. Opposite Party No.1 is directed to refund the entire amount deposited by the Complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. [Para 15 to 20].

Result: Complaint partly allowed.