Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member and Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Member
Durgesh Singh and Ors. – Complainants
versus
Lodha Developers Limited – Opp. Party
Consumer Case Nos.11, 1154 and 1155 of 2019
Consumer Case Nos.12, 1272 and 2193 of 2019
Consumer Case Nos.630, 631, 663 to 666 and 854 of 2019
Decided on 17.3.2023
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.21[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58] - Services – Real Estate – Allotment of Flat / Plot – Delayed Possession – Entitlement for Refund – Along with simple interest - On facts, regards delay in actual possession from the committed date with grace period as given in clause 11.2 of the agreement, complainants are entitled to delay compensation for the period of delay as given in column 11 of Table at Annexure-C - In case the two periods of delays described above overlap in any case, it shall be counted once only - The contention that complainant(s) is/are not a consumer(s) as he/they has/have purchased the unit for commercial purpose is rejected as no such evidence has been adduced by the OP in this regard – Therefore, purchase of a house can only be for a commercial purpose if the purchaser is engaged in the business of purchasing and selling houses or plots on a regular basis, solely with a view to make profit by way of sale of such houses, if the house is purchased purely as an investment and the purchaser is not undertaking the trading of houses on regular basis, then it would be difficult to say that he had purchased it for commercial purpose – Therefore, OP shall pay delay compensation in the form of simple interest @ 6% per annum on the amount paid by the complainants from the committed date of possession for fit outs till the actual date of offer of possession. [Paras 12 to 14].
Result: Complaint disposed off.
ORDER
Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Member—The present batch of Consumer Complaints (CCs) have been filed by the Complainants against Opposite Party (OP) as detailed above, inter alia praying for directions to the OP to:—
(i) Provide apartment having carpet area as agreed between the parties in Lodha DIORO at New Cuffe Parade alongwith all amenities, facilities and infrastructure or in the alternate, refund an amount equal to cost paid for shortfall in carpet area along with interest as also the differential stamp duty.
(ii) Pay compensation for delay in delivering the possession of flat alongwith 18% interest.
(iii) Provide each and every amenities, facilities as promised.
(iv) Compensation for opportunity loss caused to the complainant due to acts of omission/commission on the part of OP.
(v) Compensation for undue hardship, injury and agony, both physical and mental, caused to the complainant.
(vi) Pay cost of litigation.
2. In CC 12 of 2019 the main prayer is for directions to OP to (i) take back the allotted flat and refund the amount along with interest @ 18% p.a. or (ii) hand over a new flat having the agreed carpet area with similar view as booked with refund of amount for shortfall in carpet area along with interest as alternate prayer.
3. 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 at Annexure-A, these complaints are being disposed off by this common order. However, for the sake of convenience, Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 11 of 2019 is treated as the lead case and facts enumerated herein under are taken from CC/11/2019.
4. Original complaint was filed on 03.01.2019 against two OPs, viz Lodha Crown Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) and Lodha Developers Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2). Complaint was admitted on 09.01.2019 only against OP-1 subject to complainant filing an amended memo of parties impleading OP-1 as the sole OP, which was filed on 14.01.2019. Subsequently, on 23.05.2019, another amended memo of parties was filed with Lodha Developers Ltd. (Formerly Lodha Crown Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. & Lodha Developers Pvt. Ltd.) as the OP. Again on 08.02.2021, another amended memo of parties was filed with Macrotech Developers Ltd. (Formerly Lodha Developers Ltd., Lodha Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Lodha Crown Buildmart Ltd.) as the OP. In the application dated 08.02.2021, seeking permission to file amended memo of parties, it is stated that when agreement to sell was entered into between the parties, the name of OP was Lodha Crown Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. Thereafter, the name of OP went through several changes and presently the name of OP is Macrotech Developers. The name of M/s Lodha Crown Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. has been first changed to M/s Lodha Bellisimo Crown Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., again by order dated 04.01.2018 passed by NCLT Mumbai, M/s Lodha Bellisimo Pvt. Ltd. merged with M/s Lodha Developers Pvt. Ltd., thereafter, Lodha Developers Pvt. Ltd. became a public company and name was changed to Lodha Developers Ltd., again the name Lodha Developers Ltd. too has been changed and presently it is M/s Macrotech Developers Ltd.
5. Notice was issued to the OP. Parties filed Written Statement/Reply, Rejoinder, Evidence by way of an Affidavit and Written Arguments/Synopsis etc. as per details given in the Table at Annexure-A. The details of the flats allotted to the Complainant (s)/other relevant details, based on pleadings of the parties and other records of the case are also given in the Table at Annexure-A.
6. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the pleadings of the parties and other case records are that the complainants booked an apartment in “Lodha Dioro’ (New Cuffe Parade) project of OP and was allotted a 3BHK Flat No. A-502, 5th Floor, measuring carpet
Builders must not impose unfair charges or conditions that undermine consumer rights, ensuring timely possession and compliance with agreements.
Delay compensation - The payment of delay compensation at the rate of Rs.5 per square feet per month by the OP(s) is an admission of delay on their part. Hence, the complainant(s) in the present circ....
(1) Contract - A term of a contract, will not be final and binding if it is shown that the consent to the said term was not really voluntary, if the person giving consent had no other choice. (2) Nom....
The court ruled that a consumer society cannot claim compensation for deficiency without clear evidence of service shortfalls and emphasizes obligations under the Consumer Protection Act and MOFA.
Onus of Proof – onus of establishing that the Complainant was dealing in real estate i.e. in the purchase and sale of Flat in his normal course of business to earn profits, shifts to the Opposite Par....
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
