Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member
Major Sandeep Vinayak and Ors. —Complainants
versus
Army Welfare Housing
Organization and Ors. —Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No.221 of 2017
Decided on 6.6.2022
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainants:Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Advocate Mr. Ritesh Khare, Advocate Mr. Akhilesh, Advocate Mr. Mohit, Advocate Ms. Nikita Anand, Advocate Ms. Debollina Dutta, Advocate Mr. Rohit Kaushik, Advocate Ms. Mantika Haryani, Advocate Mr. Aftab Singh Khara, Advocate Mr. Mohit Prasad, Advocate Ms. Nidhi Mittal, Advocate Lt. Col. Virendra Singh
For the Opp. Parties:Mr. Anand Shankar Jha, Advocate Mr. Hare Ram Tiwary, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Delayed Compensation - None of the complainants have raised any objection relating to delayed compensation at the time of taking possession, therefore, they cannot be allowed to raise objection in this respect after such a long time.
Headnote:
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 – Plea as to delayed Compensation – if can be permitted to be raised at a belated Stage - Complaint filed for alleged delayed in possession of Flats - None of the complainants have raised any objection relating to delayed compensation at the time of taking possession, therefore, they cannot be allowed to raise objection in this respect after such a long time – Therefore, complainants are entitled for delayed compensation. AWHO is working on ‘no profit no loss’ basis and is not a profit making organization. It has realized the amount of increased costs from the complainants time to time, which were factored due to (i) society corpus charges, (ii) floor differential charges, (iii) parking charges, (iv) enhanced land compensation, (v) imposition of service tax and labour welfare cess since 2010, (vi) price rise of building materials, (vii) change in norms of Haryana Renewable Energy Development Agency – Therefore, complaint is dismissed.
Held: None of the complainants have raised any objection relating to delayed compensation at the time of taking possession, therefore, they cannot be allowed to raise objection in this respect after such a long time. In such circumstances, I do not find that the complainants are entitled for delayed compensation. AWHO is working on ‘no profit no loss’ basis and is not a profit making organization. It has realized the amount of increased costs from the complainants time to time, which were factored due to (i) society corpus charges, (ii) floor differential charges, (iii) parking charges, (iv) enhanced land compensation, (v) imposition of service tax and labour welfare cess since 2010, (vi) price rise of building materials, (vii) change in norms of Haryana Renewable Energy Development Agency. [Para 10]
Result: Compliant dismissed.
ORDER
Heard Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Advocate, for the complainants and Mr. Anand Shankar Jha, Advocate, for the opposite parties.
2. IA/2093/2021 filed by Col. Hemant Parmar for deletion of his name from the impleadment application from IA/16123/2019. The application is allowed. Col. Hemant Parmar is deleted from the application.
3. 51 buyers of dwelling units have filed above complaint in representative capacity on behalf of numerous buyers for various reliefs. At the time of arguments, relief (j) to award suitable compensation to the flat buyers for inordinate delay in construction/ handing over possession of the flats, for causing mental agony and for burdening with the increased materials costs due to delay, deviation cost charged by HUDA due to lack of proper supervision/planning by AWHO amounting to more than Rs.2/- crores and same be given to all the aggrieved allottees along with interest @15% per annum, has been pressed.
4. This Commission, vide order dated 19.05.2017, rejected the application for permission to file the complaint in representative capacity under Section 12 (1) (c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and dismissed the complaint as time barred. However, Supreme Court, vide order dated 04.12.2017, set aside the order dated 19.05.2017 in Civil Appeal No.18837 of 2017, and condoned the delay in filing the complaint. Thereafter, IA/1327/2018 was allowed and permission to file complaint in representative capacity was granted on 21.01.2019.
5. The complainants stated that Army Welfare Housing Organisation (AWHO) (opposite party-1) was a society, registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860 and formed with object to provide dwelling units to the serving and retired Army officers, other Army personnel and their widows, undertaking development and construction of dwelling units by its own. AWHO is managed by Army Personnel and Managing Director is working under Adjutant General of the Integrated Headquarter, MOD (Army), is its Ex-officio Chairman. AWHO launched a project of different types of dwelling units at Sector-27, Panchkula, Haryana and gave advertisements on 01.10.2005, mentioning that probable completion year as 2008 and approximate costs of the units between Rs.35.52 lacs to Rs.12.82 lacs. The complainants applied for and allotted different types of dwelling units, details of which have been given in schedule-A of the complaint. The complainants invested their hard earned money, in the hope that they would get home till end of the year 2008. But till the date of filing of the complaint, certain clearance/no objection for construction were still awaited. The complainants made protest against various deficiencies. Then the opposite parties formed a committee of technically qualified officers, who submitted report dated 10.06.2014, pointing out variations in construction, namely (a) No steel grill door with fly mesh at entrance to each unit, (b) No kitchen door, (c) Change of teak door frames, (d) Change of external grit finish, (e) No 9 X service lifts in luxury, super deluxe and deluxe block, (f) No 50 litres solar water heating system and (g) No fire fighting equipment. AWHO raised demand of increased cost up to extent of 61% of the units. The increase of the cost was alleged due to change of foundation and escalation in cost of construction material and labour due to delay in construction. AWHO has illegally charged for car parking space and sold the open area meant for jogging/walking track. The complainants were aggrieved with delay in giving possession, charging for ‘car parking area’, denial of rebate due to not completing construction in time, increase of cost due to delay and poor workmanship. The complainants filed complaint before Chief Minister, Haryana and after inquiry, an FIR dated 12.04.2015 was registered against the concerned officials. There were various major defects in construction. Under Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983, AWHO is bound to provide common areas and facilities. Haryana
