Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member and Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Member
Varun Goyal – Complainant
versus
M/s. Suncity Pvt. Ltd. – Opp. Party
Consumer Case No.368 of 2018
Decided on 17.11.2022
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.12(1)(a)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.35(1)(a)] – Contract Act, 1872 – S.56 – Force Majeure – unforeseen and unavoidable catastrophic that interrupt - Delayed compensation – With interest – entitlement for - Extension granted – for Completion of project - Services – Real Estate – Allotment of Flat / Plot – Delayed Possession – Complaint has been field for alleged delayed possession - Apartment Buyer Agreement - Force Majeure is a clause that is included in contract to save from the liability for unforeseen and unavoidable catastrophic that interrupt. Force Majeure has been statutorily recognised under Section 56 of the Contract Act, 1872 - Payment table as given in paragraph-4 of the complaint shows that the complainant did not make any payment during 2013-2014. As such, the opposite party is entitled for extension of two years period for force majeure reason under clause-27 of ABA and due date of possession would be 14.02.2016 - The complainant is entitled for delayed compensation for the period of 15.02.2016 to 31.08.2017, in the form of interest @6% per annum on his deposit. Interest @6% per annum on the deposit is fair compensation - For the period of 2013-2014, the construction was stopped as such, the opposite party would not be entitled to charge interest during this period, on the defaulted amount of instalment - the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to remove deficiency in construction as per specification, if not already removed. [Paras 8 to 12].
Result: Complaint allowed.
ORDER
Heard Mr. Shekhar Gehlot, Advocate, for the complainant and Mr. Pravin Bahadur, Advocate, for the opposite party.
2. The complainant has filed IA/5889/2018, for adducing additional documentary evidence, IA/12613/2018, for condoning the delay in filing the amended complaint and IA/12612/2018 for amending the complaint, which are allowed. Amended complaint and documentary evidence are taken on record.
3. Varun Goyal filed above complaint, for directing the opposite party to pay (i) Rs.700548/-, towards loss of rent from 15.02.2014 to 01.09.2017, (ii) Rs.713359/-, towards excess payment of tax due to delay, (iii) Rs.921612/-, towards loss of extra interest on the amount paid to builder due to erroneous charging, (iv) Rs.142881/-, the amount of GST and other taxes enforced after 15.02.2014, (v) Rs.5/- lakhs, for not providing Jacuzzi, Shower, Cubicle in all bathrooms and modular kitchen, (vi) Rs.10/- lakhs, as compensation for mental agony and harassment, (vii) pay Rs.100000/- as cost of the litigation, (viii) Rs.7040194/-, for illegal retention of money during 15.02.2014 to 01.09.2017; and (ix) any other relief which may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be granted. In the amended complaint, the complainant has revised prayers as (i) Rs.1059372/-, towards loss of rent from 15.02.2014 to 01.09.2017, (ii) Rs.713359/-, towards excess payment of tax due to delay, (iii) Rs.921612/-, towards interest on excess payments & GST, (iv) Rs.142881/-, the amount of GST and other taxes enforced after 15.02.2014, (v) Rs.5/- lakhs, for not providing Jacuzzi, Shower, Cubicle in all bathrooms and modular kitchen, (vi) Rs.10/- lakhs, as compensation for mental agony and harassment, (vii) pay Rs.100000/- as cost of the litigation, (viii) Rs.7040194/-, for illegal retention of money during 15.02.2014 to 01.09.2017.
4. The complainant stated that M/s. Suncity Projects Private 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 project and selling its unit to the prospective buyers. The opposite party launched a project of group housing, in the name of “Parikrama” at village Kundi, Sector-20, district Panchkula, Haryana, in the year 2010 and made wide publicity of the facilities and amenities of the project. The opposite party claimed to have requisite approval for construction, financial, administrative and legal capacity to complete the project by 2014. The opposite party claimed to provide world class facilities including modular kitchen, Jacuzzi fitted bathrooms among others. Believing upon the representations and tall promises of the opposite party, the complainant, who was in need of his residence, booked a flat on 23.12.2010 and deposited booking amount of Rs.5/- lakhs. After booking, the opposite party allotted Flat No.1001, Tower-10-A, super area 2150 sq.ft. at the rate of Rs.4500/- sq.ft. to the complainant and executed Apartment Buyer Agreement (ABA) on 15.02.2011, in his favour. Clause-25 of ABA provides three years period from the date of agreement or approval of all services plans, whichever is later and subject to timely payment by the allottee, for delivery of possession. Annexure-IV of the ABA provides for “construction link payment plan”. ABA contains one sided arbitrary clauses inasmuch as in case of delay in payment of instalments, the complainant was liable to pay interest @24% per annum while in case of delay in possession, the compensation @ Rs.10/- per sq.ft., per month on super area was payable. The complainant took loans from the banks for making payments. As per demand, the complainant paid Rs.500000/- on 23.12.2010, Rs.951250/- on 03.01.2011, Rs.976500/- on 12.02.2011, Rs.1693125/- on 31.10.2011, Rs.416880/- on 03.02.2012, Rs.725625/- on 09.02.2012, Rs.435375/- on 25.06.2012, Rs.312000/- on 25.06.2012, Rs.399094/- on 06.10.2012, Rs.326531/- on 06.10.2012, Rs.399094/- on 22.12.20
SupremeToday
(1) Offer of Possession - An offer of possession based on occupancy certificate (OC) needs to be considered as valid.(2) Additional Sanction - Additional sanction or safety certificates once an OC ha....
(1) Earing profits - The onus of establishing that the Complainant was dealing in real estate i.e. in the purchase and sale of plots/ flats in his normal course of business to earn profits, shifts to....
Consumers are entitled to refunds for unreasonable delays in property possession, affirming their rights under contracts.
The court affirmed consumer rights to timely possession and reasonable compensation despite contractual waivers, emphasizing obligations of developers in real estate transactions.
The court determined that delayed compensation is owed at 6% per annum in cases of non-compliance with delivery timelines dictated by agreements.
Consumers have the right to timely possession and compensation for undue delays as established by precedents under the Consumer Protection Act.
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
