NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member
Dimple Murgai and Anr. – Complainants
versus
M/s. Jaiprakash Associates – Opp. Party
Consumer Case Nos.974 and 975 of 2018
Decided on 16.3.2023
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S. 21(1)(a)(i)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58(1)(a)(i)] – Services – Real Estate – Allotment of Flat / Plot – Delayed Possession – Right to claim refund - The contention of the OP that complainant is not a consumer as he has purchased the unit for commercial/ investment purposes is rejected as no such evidence has been adduced by the OPs in this regard. It has been observed by this Commission in various cases that 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. The plea of OPs that delay was due to force majeure circumstances is not valid as there is a delay of 3 years from the committed date. There is no documentary evidence to support the contention of the Opposite Parties that the reasons pleaded by them, can be construed as ‘Force Majeure - In the instant case, there was a delay of 3 years from the committed date of possession till the date of obtaining OC – Thus, in the present facts and circumstances, delay compensation should stop till the date of obtaining OC by the OP. Hence, the complainant in the present case has a legitimate right to claim refund alongwith fair delay compensation/interest from the OPs till the date of obtaining OC i.e. 26.11.2015 – Complaints allowed/disposed off. [Paras 07 to 11].
Result: Complaint allowed/disposed off.
ORDER
These two Consumer Complaints (CCs) have been filed by the Complainant(s) against Opposite Party as detailed above, inter alia praying for directions to the OP to:—
(i) Immediately settle the accounts and handover the possession of residential apartment in question complete in all respect in a habitable and livable condition with all amenities or in alternative.
(ii) Return the amounts paid by complainants on various dates together with 18% p.a. interest on amounts paid by complainants.
(iii) In case apartment is being offered by OP, direct the OP to execute conveyance of apartment in favour of complainants and hand over the physical possession of apartment in livable and habitable condition or to pay complainants cost of funds @12% p.a. on amounts paid by complainants, from committed date of possession till date of actual physical handover of possession of apartment in question.
2. Since the facts and question of law involved and the reliefs prayed for in these complaints are similar/identical, by the same complainant 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 974 of 2018 is treated as the lead case and facts enumerated herein under are taken from CC 974/2018.
3. It is averred/stated in the Complaint that:—
(i) The complainant vide application dated 20.07.2009 applied for provisional allotment and were allotted a flat bearing no. MC- 1201 in tower 2, Moon Court Apatrments, Jaypee Greens, Greater Noida vide provisional allotment letter dated 18.08.2009 for a consideration of Rs. 89,81,696/-. That the possession was to be handed over to the complainants within 36 months + 90 days grace period i.e. by 18.11.2012.
(ii) The OP have used the funds of complainants including bank loans besides personal savings, totalling Rs. 1,02,07,447 and pocketed the entire consideration to be paid in a dishonest and malafide manner. That the project in question is being constructed at a very slow pace and there is no clear position that OP will be able to complete its project in near future.
4. The OP in their written statement/reply stated that:—
(i) There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and it is not involved in any unfair trade practices. That the complainants have made default in payment of instalments and complainants requested for cancellation of unit and for refund in 2015 as per the agreed terms. Due to this request the offer of possession was delayed, even though OP had completed the unit before November 2015 and GNIDA had issued the OC for building on 26.11.2015.
(ii) The complainants have booked multiple units in the project for investment/ commercial purposes. Therefore, complainants are not a consumer as defined in Consumer Protection Act. The delay in completion occurred due to force majeure conditions such as- delay in government approvals, scarcity of water, shortage of labour, restrictions in excavations. It was agreed between the parties that OP would be entitled to extension of time without incurring any liability. The economic slowdown which has affected real estate industry, and NGT orders restricting from extracting underground water for construction purpose.
(iii) The net consideration of unit in question is Rs.73,48,500/- which does not fall within pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. The present complaint is not within the limitation period and thus is barred to be adjudicated upon.
5. Notice was issued to the OP 09.05.2018. 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 re
Delay Compensation - Delay compensation should stop till the date of obtaining OC by the OP.
Right to claim refund - the complainant in the present circumstances have a legitimate right to claim refund alongwith fair delay compensation/interest from the OP.
Indefinite time - Complainant(s) cannot be made to wait for an indefinite time and suffer financially.
(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....
Specified time - Therefore when possession of the allotted plot/flat/house is not delivered within the specified time, the allottee is entitled to a refund of the amount paid, with reasonable Interes....
One-sided contractual terms - Appellant-Builder cannot seek to bind the Respondent with such one-sided contractual terms.
Delay in delivery of possession constitutes unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act.
Right to Compensation - The right of the consumer to be compensated for inordinate delay in the offer of possession of a residential apartment booked by them due to inordinate delays by builders when....
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.