Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member
Vidya and Ors. —Complaints
versus
M/s. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. —Opp. Party
Consumer Case No.1557 of 2016
Decided on 29.9.2022
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 – absence of Sanctioned layout plan – No NOC – Sealing of premises by DDA - Complaint has been filed for alleged delay in delivery of possession of Flats - The construction of the flat has to be completed within 30 months of commencement of construction with grace period of six months. The opposite party realized total Rs.13062971/-, up to December, 2013 - In Flat Buyer Agreement, the opposite party stated that they had submitted Layout Plan to the concerned authority - From the written reply, it is proved that Layout Plan was not sanctioned in the absence of NOC from DDA and the construction has been sealed on the spot by DDA. There is unreasonable delay in offer of possession, which amounts to deficiency in service. Without sanction of layout plan, the opposite party has realised more than the basic sale price of the flat, which amounts to unfair trade practice – Therefore, the complaint is partly allowed with cost of Rs. One Lac. [Paras 6 to 8]
Result: Complaint allowed.
ORDER
Heard Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, Advocate, for the complainants and Mr. Prabhakar Tiwari, Advocate, for the opposite party.
2. Above complaint has been filed, for directing the opposite party to (i) handover possession of Unit No.702, Tower-2, in the building “Parsvnath Paramount”, complete in all respect as per specifications, forthwith, (ii) to pay delayed compensation of Rs.13736350/- with interest @24% per annum, (iii) to pay Rs.20000/- per month from the date of filing of the complaint till delivery of possession, (iv) to pay Rs.110000/-, as the costs of litigation, (v) to pay Rs.10/- lacs, as compensation for mental agony and harassment; and (vi) any other relief which is deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. The complaint was amended with the leave of the Commission vide order dated 24.03.2022 and relief of refund of money as per market value of the flat with interest @ 24% per annum has been prayed.
3. The complainants stated that M/s. Parsvnath Developers Limited (the opposite party) was a company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of development and construction of group housing projects. The opposite party launched a group housing project in the name of “Parsvnath Paramount”, at Subhash Nagar, (near Subhash Nagar Metro Station), Delhi, in the year 2008 and made wide publicity. On coming to know about the project, the complainants booked a 3BHK flat on 15.07.2008 and deposited Rs1603066/-. The opposite party allotted Flat No.301 admeasuring 1805 sq.ft. at the rate of Rs.7105/- per sq.ft. total price of Rs.12824525/-+ Rs.300000/- for covered Car Parking space, Tower-3, in “Parsvnath Paramount” to them. The opposite party executed Flat Buyer Agreement dated 10.10.2008, in favour of the complainants. As per clause-11(a) of this agreement, the construction of the flat has to be completed within 30 months of commencement of construction with grace period of six months. The complainants opted for “Construction Linked Payment Plan”, under which 25% of sale price was payable within 30 days of booking, 60% of sale price + Car Parking charge was payable in six instalments and 15% of sale price was payable in three instalments The complainants deposited Rs1603066/- on 15.07.2008, Rs1603066/- on 14.08.2008, Rs.1582452/- on 30.10.2008, Rs.340685/- on 11.06.2011, Rs.615321/- on 13.07.2011, Rs.800000/- on 13.07.2011, Rs.315320/- on 14.10.2011, Rs.900000/- on 14.10.2011, Rs.1422426.54 on 09.04.2012, Rs.500000/- on 21.04.2012, Rs.520697/- on 21.04.2012, Rs.1422426/- on 28.06.2012, Rs.1422427/- on 30.01.2013, Rs.708345/- on 08.11.2013 and Rs.7155/- on 21.12.2013 (total Rs.13062971/-) as per demand of the opposite party. The opposite party unilaterally transferred Flat No.301, Tower-3 to Flat No.-702 (admeasuring 1942 sq.ft.), Tower-2, in April, 2011. The opposite party collected Rs.60141/- on 29.01.2014 and Rs.60141/- on 13.03.2014, in the head of VAT. The opposite party demanded Rs.715477.18, vide letter dated 25.10.2013, on “Start of Internal Plaster”. The period of 36 months had already expired. The complainants tried to contact the opposite party to know the progress of the project. The opposite party avoided to reply correct facts. The complainants visited the site in June, 2015 and found that no construction work was going on. The complainants, vide letter dated 15.06.2015, inquired as to within what time, the construction would be completed. The opposite party vide letters dated 29.06.2015 and 05.07.2015, gave vague and evasive reply that they would complete the project at the earliest. The complainants, vide letters dated 28.10.2015 and 06.01.2016 wanted to know the exact time, up to which, they would get possession. The opposite party did not respond. Then the complaint was filed on 21.09.2016.
4. The opposite party (the builder) filed its written reply on 21.11.2016 and contested the case. The material facts relating to the project, allotment of the flat to the complainan
Without sanction of layout plan - Without sanction of layout plan, the opposite party has realised more than the basic sale price of the flat, which amounts to unfair trade practice.
1) If the construction wasn’t complete and not in habitable condition, then issue for fit out possession notice by the Opp. Party was not proper.2) Without obtaining Occupancy Certificate from the st....
Contractual clauses that impose unfair obligations are unenforceable, and unreasonable delays in property possession warrant compensation.
Developers must adhere to contractual obligations regarding property possession timelines to protect consumer rights.
Delayed compensation - As the builder was paying EMI, the complainants cannot claim interest on this amount, as delayed compensation.
Wait indefinitely – Complainants cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of the booked Flat, as even till date the construction is incomplete.
Award of Interest - when interest is awarded as compensation then awarding additional compensation was not justified.
LAW POINT Global recession – Complainants cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the delivery of possession and the act of the Opposite Party in relying on global recession while retaining the amou....
Builders are liable for delay compensation until possession is offered, despite claims of force majeure.
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
