NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
R.K. Agrawal, President, Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member and Binoy Kumar, Member
Dr. Nishi Patni and Anr. – Complainants
versus
M/s. Emaar Mgf Land Limited – Opp. Party
Consumer Case No.703 of 2018
Decided on 17.3.2023
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 – Builder Buyer Agreement – refund of entire amount – along with damages and compensation - In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the Complainants were allotted the Flat in the year 2011 and the construction started at the site from August 2012. As per terms of the Agreement, the proposed date for delivery of the possession was 09.11.2015 but till the date of filing of the Written Statement, i.e., 03.08.2018, what to talk of offer of possession, even the Occupation Certificate was not obtained by the Opposite Party Developer - The Complainants had not made a prayer for delivery of possession in the Consumer Complaint and sought refund of the amount paid by them to the Opposite Party Developer on account of the delay in offering possession of the allotted Unit to them - Complainants are entitled for refund of the entire deposited amount along with damages and compensation in the form of interest@9% p.a. from the date of respective date of deposit till the date of actual refund. Consequently, the Opposite Party Developer is directed to refund to the Complainants Rs.94,83,640/- (Rupees Ninety Four Lacs Eighty Three Thousand Six Hundred Forty only) alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of actual refund within 6 weeks from the date of passing of this Order failing which the rate of interest will increase to 12% p.a. – Complaint partly allowed. [Paras 15 to 18].
Result: Complaint partly allowed.
ORDER
The present Consumer Complaint has been filed under Section 12(1)(a) read with Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) by Dr. Nidhi Patni and Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Patni (hereinafter referred to as the Complainants) against Opposite Party, M/s. Emaar MGF Land Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Developer), seeking refund of the amount paid towards purchase of Flat alongwith interest, compensation and costs as the Opposite Party Developer failed to hand-over the possession of the Apartment booked by them in the Project launched by the Developer in the name and style of “Palm Gardens” located at Sector-83, Gurgaon, Haryana.
2. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the Complaint are that the Opposite Party Developer launched a Residential Project in the name and style of “Palm Gardens” located at Sector-83, Gurgaon, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the Project). The Complainants booked an Apartment for residential purpose in the said Project for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,00,45,319/- in late 2011. Unit bearing No. PGN-09-12A03 at 12th Floor, Tower No. 09 having super area of approx. 1900 sq. ft. was provisionally allotted to the Complainants. Builder Buyer Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the Agreement) was executed between the Parties on 24.11.2011. The construction of the Project as per the Statement of Accounts, started on 09.08.2012. As per Clause 10(a) of the Agreement, the delivery of the possession was to be offered within 36 months with a grace period of 3 months from the date of the start of the construction. It is averred by the Complainants that as per terms of the Agreement, the expected date of delivery of possession of the Apartment was 09.11.2015. The Complainants had deposited Rs.94,83,640/- (Rupees Ninety Four Lacs Eighty Three Thousand Six Hundred Forty only) on different dates as per demand of the Opposite Party Developer. Despite that the Opposite Party Developer miserably failed to deliver the possession of the Flat within stipulated period. The slow pace of the construction clearly suggests that the possession of the Apartment alongwith the promised layout, amenities and specifications including the greens etc, will not be probable in the near future. It is also averred in the Complaint that the Opposite Party Developer has charged several unwarranted taxes and charges. It is further averred that whenever the Complainant raised query for actual date of possession, the Opposite Party Developer without assigning any reason for the delay, kept postponing the delivery date of the said Project on one pretext or the other. Seeing the conduct of the Opposite Party Developer, they have no trust on the Opposite Party Developer and are no longer interested in having possession of the Apartment. Alleging deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the Opposite Party Developer, the Complainants have filed the present Consumer Complaint seeking following reliefs:—
“(i) Direct the Opposite Party for an immediate 100% refund of the total amount of Rs.94,83,640/- (Rupees Ninety Four Lacs Eighty Three Thousand Six Hundred Forty only) paid by the Complainants, along with a penal interest of 18% per annum from the date of the receipt of the payment made to the Opposite party;
(ii) Direct the Opposite Party to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) to the Complainants for mental agony, harassment, discomfort and undue hardships caused to the Complainant as a result of the above acts and omissions on the on the part of the Opposite Party;
(iii) Direct the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) to the Complainants as a whole, towards litigation costs; and
(iv) That any other and further relief in favour of the Complainant as the Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case.”
3. The Complaint was resisted by the Opposite Party Developer by filing its Written Statement in
Kavita Ahuja vs. Shipra Estates
M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited vs. Aftab Singh
Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Govindan Raghavan
Earnest Money Clause – Earnest Money Clause in the Agreement being wholly one-sided and unjustified constitutes an unfair trade practice and therefore, is not binding upon the Complainant.
1) Arbitration Clause in the Agreement does not bar jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora to entertain the Complaint2) No hesitation in holding that terms of Apartment Buyer’s Agreement were wholly one-s....
A developer's failure to deliver possession of a property within a reasonable time constitutes deficiency of service under consumer protection laws.
Consumers are entitled to refunds with interest when developers fail to deliver property due to one-sided contract terms viewed as unfair trade practices.
Valid Possession – Mere completion of structure cannot be said that the Apartment is ready for valid possession.
Delay in delivering possession of property constitutes deficiency of service, entitling consumer to refund and compensation under Consumer Protection Act.
(1) Negligence on Part of Builder – If the builder, whose services are engaged by a buyer for construction of a residential house for him fails to complete the construction and deliver its possession....
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.