Back
MADHYA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL
Shantanu S. Kemkar, President, Dr. Srikant Pandey, Member, Dr. (Mrs.) Monika Malik, Member
Mahanand Tiwari – Complainant
versus
Harshwardhan Jain and Ors. – Opp. Parties
Consumer Complaint No.111 of 2017
Decided on 1.3.2023
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant: Shri Dileep Choithrani, learned counsel
For the Opposite Party No.1: Shri Yogesh Jain, learned counsel
For the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3: None
For the Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5: Shri Satish Sharma, learned counsel
IMPORTANT POINT
Possession of the house - A buyer/complainant cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the house.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.17[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.47(1)] – Services – Real Estate – Allotment of Flat / House / Plot – Delayed Possession – proof of deficiency of Service - There is no doubt that the complainant had paid almost total sale consideration to the OP No.2 & 3 with an expectation of getting timely possession of the house, but there is inordinate delay in handing over the possession of fully constructed house to the complainant – Therefore, the opposite parties failed to handover the possession of the house to the complainant within promised time period. It is clear that the opposite parties failed to fulfil their part of contractual obligation regarding delivering possession of the house to the complainant within the time stipulated in the agreement and even within a reasonable time period thereafter – On facts, possession has not been given to the complainant and the project is still incomplete. A buyer/complainant cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the house - OP No.2 & 3 guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service – Complaint allowed. [Paras 15 to 23].
Result: Complaint allowed.
ORDER
Dr. Monika Malik, Member—This complaint under Section 17(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘Act’) is filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties. As per the complainant, the opposite party no.1 (hereinafter referred to as OP no.1) is the land owner, who sells plots, the opposite party no.2 (hereinafter referred to as OP no.2) is the land developer, the opposite party no.3 (hereinafter referred to as OP no.3) is the builder and the opposite party no.4 & 5 (hereinafter referred to as OP no.4&5) are the financers. The complainant has therefore filed the present complaint, for not receiving the constructed house within time as agreed, seeking relief against the OP no.1-3 for alleged deficiency in service/unfair trade practice as also against the OP no. 4 & 5.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant booked a house in the housing scheme floated by the OP no.1 to 3 under the name of ‘Hills & Valley Colony’ situated at Village-Keerat Nagar, Bhojpur Road, Tehsil-Goharganj, District-Raisen (MP). Plot no.160 admeasuring 20x50=1000 sq.ft was allotted to the complainant. The total sale consideration including sale-deed was fixed at Rs.9,25,000/- for which an agreement was executed among the parties on 03.09.2010, at Bhopal. On 10.01.2011, the registered sale-deed of the plot was executed and the complainant paid cost of the plot i.e. Rs.75,000/- to the OP no. 1 to 3. As per agreement executed among the parties, the OP no.1 to 3 had to deliver the possession of the house after construction, to the complainant by 03.09.2011. The complainant had obtained loan from the OP no. 4&5-financers. Out of the total sale consideration i.e. Rs.9,25,000/-, the OP no.4 & 5-financers paid Rs.7,54,741/- to the OP no.1to 3. Remaining amount of Rs.99,000/- was paid by the complainant via cheque no.741086 of SBI to the OP no. 1to3. It is stated that as per agreement, after payment at different stages, the house is to be made available to the complainant for residence within a period of 180 days from the date of final payment. A sum of Rs.9,25,000/- was paid to the OP 1 to 3 by the complainant in seven monthly instalments after obtaining finance from the OP no.4 & 5. It is alleged that despite obtaining almost full amount, work has not started. The complainant therefore filed a complaint against the OP no.1 to 3 seeking relief of Rs.9,25,000/- along with Rs.8,00,000/- towards interest paid to the financer. Rs.7,50,000/- towards rent @ Rs.7,500/- per month for a period of eight years, with Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony along with Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for inordinate delay and Rs.1,00,000/- as costs. The complainant sought relief of a sum of Rs.25,000/- from the OP no.4 & 5 towards processing fee and the amount spent in other heads.
3. The complainant has filed his affidavit along with set of documents in support of the complaint filed by him.
4. The OP no.1 denying the allegations made in the complaint admitted that the sale price of the constructed house i.e. Rs.9,25,000/- was agreed between the parties and an agreement to that effect was executed. The OP no.1 also admitted that sale-deed of the plot no.160 admeasuring 20x50=1000 sq.ft was executed for which complainant paid Rs.99,000/- to the OP no.1. It is denied that after construction, the possession of the house was to be delivered by 03.09.2011 as per the agreement. It is also denied that the complainant had availed finance for a sum of Rs.7,54,741/- out of total sale consideration Rs.9,25,000/-, from the OP no.4&5 and the finance company had paid the same to the OP no.1. It is denied that the complainant was facing hardships and incurred expenses in rent as also in paying interest on the financed amount, since he was not getting possession of the house. It is also denied that after taking full sale consideration, the opposite party no.1 did not construct the house in question and did not give possessio
