DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Rajan Sharma, Member (Judicial) and Bimla Kumari, Member (Female)
Sanjay Kr. Gupta and Anr. – Complainant
versus
Parsvnath Developers Ltd. – Opp. Party
C.No.1401 of 2016
Decided on 3.2.2023
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.17[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.47(1)] – Services – Real Estate – Allotment of Flat / Plot – Delayed Possession – Deficiency of Service - ‘housing category’ – Liability and Compensation for - In the present case, the complainants had booked a flat in the project of opposite party, the construction of which has not been completed by the Opposite party till date. Therefore, the complainants have filed the complaint for the refund the amount, along with interest and compensation – Therefore, the case of the complainants is falling under ‘housing category’ and does not involves any complication question of facts, which can easily be decided by this commission and the matter does not require any detailed trial by any Civil Court – Thus, the complicated question of facts and laws can be decided by the Commission in view of settled law - A failure of the developer to comply with the contractual obligation to provide the flat to a flat purchaser within a contractually stipulated period amounts to a deficiency - There is a fault, shortcoming or inadequacy in the nature and manner of performance which has been undertaken to be performed in pursuance of the contract in relation to the service. The expression ‘service’ in Section 2(1)(0) means a service of any description which is made available to potential users including the provision of facilities in connection with (among other things) housing construction – on facts, there is ‘deficiency of service’ on the part of the opposite party for which the complainants are liable to be compensated – Therefore, the opposite party is directed to refund the amount of Rs 17,77,791/- to the complainant – Complaint is allowed. [Paras 29 to 40].
Result: Complaint allowed.
ORDER
Bimla Kumari, Member (Female)—Brief facts of the case, which led the complainants to file the present complaint are that they had booked a residential Flat no. 501, T-11 on 22.10.2013 in the project of opposite party namely “Parsvnath Privilege’ which was to be developed and constructed at Plot no.11, Sector P-1, Greater Noida, UP vide Application/Booking Form (Annexure-C1). At the time of booking of the flat, the opposite party had verbally assured the complainant that the construction of the flat was in full swing and possession of the flat would be handed over to the complainants by December 2015. It is the case of the complainants that at the time of booking of the flat, the opposite party gave only the Application/Booking Form to them, which contained only few terms, which were meant to lure the buyers to purchase/book the flat in the project and Buyers Agreement was never showed to them. The Buyers Agreement was given to the complainants after a delay of about 3 months from the date of booking of the flat and that too for obtaining the signatures of the complainants, at the blank space available on each page. Many of the clauses of the Buyers agreement were one sided and the complainants were compelled to sign the Agreement as they were threatened with cancellation of the allotment of the flat and forfeiture of the earnest money paid by them. Accordingly, a flat Buyer Agreement Dated 13.01.2014 Annexure C2 was entered into between the parties, and as per clause 10(c) of the agreement, the construction of the flat was to be completed within a period of 36 months from the date of commencement of the construction.
2. It is the further case of the complainants that after the Buyers Agreement was signed by them, the same was returned to the opposite party for its signature and thereafter, the opposite party fraudulently added one more clause i.e. clause no.3(c)(viii) regarding the escalation in the cost of construction, which clearly amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. The complainant objected on the said alternation and sent an email to the opposite party on 12.01.2015 Annexure C3 and demanded the refund of their money.
3. It is the further case of complainants that construction of the flat was not complete even till the filing of the complaint, for the reasons best known to the opposite party. The ulterior motive of the opposite party was to extract money, fraudulently, from the innocent people. The complainants had opted for the special payment plan and had paid a total amount of Rs. 17,77,791/- out of the total cost of Rs. 64,10,880/-. The payments were made by the complainant after taking a home loan of Rs. 6 Lakhs and the loan was foreclosed in March 2016. The copy of the payment receipt issued by the opposite party to the complainants is attached as Annexure C-4 and the copy of the fore-closure of loan is annexed as Annexure C5.
4. It is the further case of the complainants that they had repeatedly expressed their concern, regarding the delay in completing the construction of the flat as well as the status of the flat but the opposite party always avoided and did not reply to the queries of the complainant and kept on delaying the matter on one pretext or the other and did not give any satisfactory reason for the delay. The opposite party has willfully caused inordinate delay in initiating and constructing the flat.
5. It has further been averred that the complainants have been living in a rented accommodation and are forced to pay monthly rent of about Rs.16,520/- Copy of the rent agreement is annexed as Annexure C-6. The dreams of the complainant have been shattered by the fraudulent and negligent act of the opposite party. As per clause 5(b) of the Flat Buyer Agreement an interest at the rate of 24% was liable to be charged from the complainants in case of any default in making the payment. Therefore, the opposite party is liable to pay a sum of Rs.26,79,775/- i.e. the principle amo
J.J. Merchant vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi
Narne Construction P. Ltd., etc. vs. Union of India and Ors. Etc.
Arifur Rahman Khan and Ors. vs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
(1) Civil court - the case of the complainants is falling under ‘housing category’ and does not involves any complication question of facts, which can easily be decided by this commission and the mat....
(1) Commercial Purpose - Mere allegations that the complainants purchased the flat for commercial purpose cannot be a ground to reject the complaint.(2) Civil Court - Merely because it is mentioned t....
Failure by a developer to deliver possession of a residential unit within the stipulated contract period constitutes a deficiency of service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, entitling the agg....
Commercial Purpose - Mere allegation, that the purchase of the property is for commercial purpose, cannot be the ground to reject the present consumer complaint.
(1) Housing Construction or business activity – Housing construction or building activity carried on by a private or statutory body constitutes ‘service’ within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) of the Ac....
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.