SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member and Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Member
Atulya Gupta and Anr. – Complainants
versus
M/s. Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. – Opp. Party
Consumer Case No.1506 of 2018 and
Consumer Case No.344 of 2019
Decided on 6.1.2023

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Mr. Pradeep Mahajan, Advocate Mr. Sudhir Mahajan, Advocate Mr. Rohan Yadav, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sumeet Sharma, Advocate Mr. Paras Choudhary, Advocate

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S. 21(a)(i) – [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58(1)(a)(i)] – Services – Real Estate – Allotment of Flat / Plot – Apartment Buyer Agreement - Delayed Possession – Legitimate right to claim refund - In the instant case, there is an inordinate delay in handing over the possession of flat by the OP. The complainants cannot be made to wait for an indefinite time and suffer financially – Therefore, the complainant in the present circumstances have a legitimate right to claim refund alongwith fair delay compensation/interest from the OP The plea of OP for entitlement of compensation to the complainant in accordance with provisions of the ABA is not valid – Thus, complaint allowed. [Paras 7 to 9].

Result: Complaint allowed.

ORDER

Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Member—The present Consumer Complaints (CCs) have been filed by the complainants against the opposite party as detailed above, inter alia praying for directions to OP:—

(i) To hand over the possession of the unit in question or offer an alternative property in same locality or refund of amount paid by the complainant(s) to the opposite party alongwith interest @ 18 %.

(ii) In case flat is being offered by OP, direct OP to execute conveyance of flat in favour of complainant(s) and handing over of physical possession of flat.

(iii) To direct OP to pay complainant(s) cost of funds @12% p.a. on the amounts paid by the complainant(s) from the committed date of possession till the date of actual physical possession.

(iv) Cost of complaint

2. Since the facts and question of law involved and the reliefs prayed for in these complaints are similar/identical and against the same Opposite Party except for minor variations in the dates, events and flat numbers etc., which are summarized in the Table in para 5 below, these complaints are being disposed off by this common order. However, for the sake of convenience, Consumer Complaint (CC) no 344 of 2019 is treated as the lead case and facts enumerated herein under are taken from CC 344/2019. In CC 1506 of 2018, the main prayer is for refund with Interest @18% p.a. with possession as alternate prayer along with Occupancy Certificate & Conveyance deed etc.

3. It is averred/stated in the complaint that:—

(i) That the complainant entered into an Agreement to Sell with the original allottee on 02.12.2011, OP vide letter dated 25.02.2012 transferred the rights under provisional allotment letter dated 18.11.2010 for the said apartment in the name of complainant. The original allottee booked a flat on 22.07.2010 in the residential Project launched by the OP in the name of “KNIGHTS COURT” in Jaypee Greens, Sector 128, Noida, U.P. and was allotted flat No. KGT 4-1702, on the 17 Floor with a Super Area 2690 sq.ft. A provisional allotment letter dated 18.11.2010 was issued. The total consideration for the flat was Rs. 1,60,07,850/- out of which, the complainant paid Rs. 1,44,34,398/- till 15.01.2019. The OP was liable to handover the possession of the unit within 36 months with a grace period of 3 months i.e. November, 2013 from the date of issue of provisional allotment letter dated 18 November 2010.

(ii) After having received almost 95% of the total cost of the flat, the OP failed to hand over the possession and is liable to compensate complainant for cost of funds @ 18% pa till execution of conveyance and handover of the said flat in habitable condition with all amenities. That OP has utilized complainant(s) hard earned money in other projects and taking false and frivolous defences in various forums/commissions in order to escape OP liability. That the OP comes with a new delivery date every time and wants to delay infinitely, default is on OP and therefore OP is liable for all consequences arising out of delay. The intention of OP was to cheat complainant and did not disclose and inform the true picture. There are malpractices on the part of OP for their wrongful gains causing wrongful losses and injuries to buyers including the complainant.

4. The OP-1 in their written statement/reply has denied the fact of deficiency in providing its services and being involved in unfair trade practices and restrictive trade practices as alleged in the complaint and has stated that—

(i) The delay occurred due to force majeure conditions and grievances are baseless, devoid of merits and tainted with malafides. That the complainant booked the unit in question for speculating in real estate market. Therefore, complainant is not a consumer as defined in Consumer Protection Act, 1986. That the complaint suffers with defects of non joinder of necessary and proper party and the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top