NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
R.K. Agrawal, President and Binoy Kumar, Member
Jitendra Shiv Kumar Ahuja and Anr. —Complainants
versus
M/s. Ireo Pvt. Ltd. through its
Managing Director —Opp. Party
Consumer Case No.698 of 2019
Decided on 13.6.2022
(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—S.21[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 —S.58] - Services – Real Estate – Allotment of Flat – Delayed Possession – Plea that Consumer is a defaulter if can be adduced – At a belated stage – Not permissible - Compliant has been filed for alleged delay in delivery of Flat – Whether the Complainants are habitual defaulter in making payments and as such the present Complaint is not maintainable – When there was remedy available with the Developer either to charge penal interest on delayed payment or cancel the allotment of the Complainants and refund the amount deposited by the Complainants but it neither cancelled the allotment nor refunded the amount deposited by the Complainants. Now, at this stage the Developer cannot take this plea, which is an afterthought. [Para 9]
(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—S.21[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 —S.58] - Services – Real Estate – Allotment of Flat – Delayed Possession – Grace period – benefit when not available - Developer is entitled for benefit of the grace period only in the event of delay happening on accounts of the reasons which the parties could not have foreseen at the time of the allotment was made. However, in the present case, no such unforeseen circumstances have been established by the Developer and they are not entitled for the grace period of 180 days – Compliant is allowed Complaint and the Developer is directed to refund the entire deposited amount to the Complainants along with interest @ 9%. p.a. within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount shall carry interest @12% p.a. for the said period. Besides, the Complainants are also entitled for the costs which we quantify at Rs.50,000/-. [Paras 14, 15].
Result: Complaint dismissed.
ORDER
The present Consumer Complaint has been filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) by the Complainants, husband and wife, against the Opposite Party, M/s. IREO Private Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the Developer”) seeking refund of the deposited amount as the Developer has failed to hand over the possession of the Apartment booked by them in the Project, namely, “IREO City Central” (hereinafter referred to as “the Project”) in terms of the Apartment Buyers Agreement (hereinafter referred to as “Agreement”) executed between the parties.
2. The facts of the case as narrated in the Complaint, are that in response to the Applications invited by the Opposite Party Developer for allotment of Flats/Apartments in their upcoming Project, “IREO City Central” located at Sector no.59, Gurgaon, Haryana, the Complainants had booked a Service Apartment on 28.02.2012 by paying a sum of Rs.13,69,290/- and they were issued a Priority No. S/64 towards their Expression of Interest. The Complainants were allotted Apartment No. R0403 on 4th floor, having an approximate area of 908.33 sq, ft. vide Allotment Offer letter dated 26.09.2012 for a total Sale Consideration of Rs.1,42,72,527/-. Thereafter, on 10.05.2013 an Apartment Buyer’s Agreement was executed between the parties. It is averred that as per Clause 13.3. of the Agreement, the possession of the allotted Unit was to be handed over to the Complainants within a period of 42 months from the date of approval of the Building Plans with an additional 180 days as “Grace Period”. Clause 13.3 of the Agreement reads as under:—
“Subject to Force Majeure, as defined herein and further subject to the allottee having complied with all its obligations under the terms and conditions of this Agreement and not having defaulted under any provision(s) of this Agreement including but not limited to the timely payment of all dues and charges including the total Sale Consideration, registration charges, stamp duty and other charges and also subject to the Allottee having complied with all formalities or documentation as prescribed by the Company, the Company proposes to offer the possession of the said Rental Pool Serviced Apartment to the Allottee within a period of 42 (Forty Two) months from the date of approval of the Building Plans and/or fulfillment of the preconditions imposed thereunder (“Commitment period”). The Allottee further agrees and understands that the Company shall additionally be entitled to a period of 180 days (“Grace period”), after the expiry of the said Commitment Period to allow for unforeseen delays beyond the reasonable control of the Company.”
3. According to the Complainants, the Building Plans of the Opposite Party Developer were sanctioned on 05.09.2013 and as such, the Developer was under an obligation to complete the Project and hand over the possession of the Service Apartment booked by them on or before 04.09.2017 including the grace period of 180 days. However, the Developer has miserably failed to complete the Project and hand over the possession of the Service Apartment, complete in all respect, in terms of the Agreement despite having received the huge amount of Rs.99,50,107.91/- from the Complainants out of the Total Sale Consideration of Rs.1,42,72,527/-.
4. According to the Complainants, since no response was being received from the Developer regarding expected date of possession and their having already paid a huge amount of Rs.1 crore (approx..), to them, they served a Legal Notice dated 23.10.2018, in terms of Clause 13.5 of the Agreement, upon the Developer asking for termination of the Agreement and refund of the deposited amount with interest. However, the said notice was not responded by the Developer. Feeling aggrieved and alleging deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the Developer in not handing over the possession as promised in the Agreement, the Complainants have filed the present compl
Kavita Ahuja vs. Shipra Estates I (2016) CPJ 31.(Para 8)
IMPORTAN POINT Grace Period - Developer is entitled for benefit of the grace period only in the event of delay happening on accounts of the reasons which the parties could not have foreseen at the ti....
(1) Remedies - The remedies under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are in addition to the remedies available under special statutes.(2) Refund of Money - Buyer cannot be made to wait indefinitely fo....
No Occupancy Certificate – The Occupation Certificate is not available even as on date, which clearly amounts to deficiency of service.
(1) Principle laid down is that onus of establishing that the Complainant was dealing in real estate, i.e., in purchase and sale of plots/flats in his normal course of business to earn profits shifts....
1) Arbitration Clause in the Agreement does not bar jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora to entertain the Complaint2) No hesitation in holding that terms of Apartment Buyer’s Agreement were wholly one-s....
One-sided contractual terms in real estate agreements constitute unfair trade practices, entitling consumers to refunds and compensation.
A developer's failure to deliver possession of a property within a reasonable time constitutes deficiency of service under consumer protection laws.
(1) Delay in obtained permits cannot be claimed as Force Majeure defense(2) Unjust agreement in favor of builder cannot be upheld(3) COVID-19 can be claimed as a Force Majeure defense
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.