Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member
Pervez Amin and Ors. – Complainants
versus
Kanpur Development
Authority (KDA) – Opp. Party
Consumer Case No.310 of 2012
Decided on 19.9.2022
For the Complainants:Ms. Priyanka Sinha and Ms. Shubhi Sharma, Advocates
For the Opp. Party:Mr. Abhishek Chaudhary, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Revision in Cost - Although the cost in Registration Booklet was tentative and the opposite party is competent to revise the cost after final construction but the cost was revised on incorrect ground and not due to increase of actual cost of construction.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.12(1)(a)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.35(1)(a)] – Services – Real Estate – Allotment of Flat / Plot – Delayed Possession - Registration Booklet was tentative – Revision in cost when permissible - Arbitrary increase in cost of Flat - Not justified – Set aside - Complaints have been filed for the alleged delay in possession of the flats - Main grievance of the complainants is in respect of increase of the costs of the flat - The opposite party has given only reason for increase in the cost that sizes of the corner flats were increased from 68.90 sq. meter to 77.79 sq. meter and other flats to 77.20 sq. meter - Although the cost in Registration Booklet was tentative and the opposite party is competent to revise the cost after final construction but the cost was revised on incorrect ground and not due to increase of actual cost of construction – Also, cost should not be increased arbitrarily – On facts, It is also alleged that sewage pipelines was not laid nor it was connected with individual flats. This report has not been controverted. As such the opposite party is liable to remove deficiency in construction – Thus, the complaint is partly allowed. The demand notice dated 20.07.2012, demanding Rs.693700/- for increase in cost, is set aside. [Paras 8 to 10].
Result: Complaint partly allowed.
ORDER
Heard Ms. Priyanka Sinha, Advocate, for the complainants and Mr. Abhishek Chaudhary, Advocate, for the opposite party.
2. 48 flat buyers have filed above complaint, as a representative case, for directing the opposite party to (i) handover possession of the flats to the complainants, complete in all respect as per specifications, forthwith, (ii) not to demand any amount other than as indicated in Brochure, (iii) to remove deficiency in construction in respect of use of marble and aluminium sink, (iv) to pay Rs.8000/-, per month as rent from due date of possession till delivery of actual possession, (v) to pay exemplary damage for mental agony and harassment, (vi) to pay compensation for delay in handing over possession, (vii) to pay the costs of litigation; and (viii) any other relief which may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. IA/1/2012 and IA/15414/2018 were allowed and permission to sue as a class action case under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was granted, vide order dated 09.11.2020. RA/189/2020, for review of order dated 09.11.2020 was rejected on 12.01.2021.
3. The complainants stated that Kanpur Development Authority (the opposite party) launched a project of group housing, namely “Ashiana Housing Scheme” at Jajmau, Kanpur City, in the year 2007 and made wide publicity of it. Under this project, four storied building, of 100 flats on each story (total 400 flats) had to be constructed for different categories of the persons as mentioned in the schedule. Registration for allotment was started from 01.11.2007 and last date for registration was 26.11.2007. Registration money was Rs.80000/-. Tentative cost of ground floor flats was Rs.9.30 lacs and other flats was Rs.7.75 lacs. Attracting with lucrative representation and believing on it, all the complainants applied for allotment of the flat and deposited registration money within time. Allotment was done by draw of lottery on 15.12.2007, in which, all the complainants were allotted flats under their category. Allotment Letters were issued to them on 05.02.2008 onward. According to clause 6.10 of the Brochure, 25% of tentative cost including registration money had to be deposited within 3 months from the date of issue of allotment letter and under Clause 6.20, remaining 75% of the cost had to be deposited in 3 equal three monthly instalments. Along with allotment letter, payment schedule was slightly changed and first instalment had to be deposited till 25.02.2008, second instalment till 25.04.2008, third instalment till 25.07.2008 and fourth instalment till 25.10.2008. Under clause-16.00, period of possession was given as 15 months and latest within 18 months from the allotment. The complainants timely deposited their instalments. Mrs. Shama Parveen (complainant-2) deposited an extra amount of Rs.253800/- on 06.05.2009 under some confusion. In spite of payment of entire sale price within time, the opposite party could not deliver possession on promised date. When the possession was not offered on due date, Mrs. Shama Parveen gave an e-mail dated 23.03.2012, inquiring for possession from the opposite party. The opposite party, vide letter dated 06.06.2012, informed her that she was not depositing her instalments and required her to deposit dues forthwith and if the instalments was deposited then to produce its receipts within 7 days. In local newspaper dated 12.07.2012, a news was published that the project “Ashiana Housing Scheme” was incomplete and hard earned money of flat buyers was blocked. Immediately thereafter, the opposite party issued demand letters dated 20.07.2012, to the complainants demanding extra-amount. Mrs. Shama Parveen, through an application dated 27.08.2012, sought for information inter-alia that on the basis of which Government Order/ Rules, costs of the flats were enhanced, under Right to Information Act, 2005. Executive Engineer, vide letter dated 01.10.2012, informed that “Ashiana Ho
