WEST BENGAL STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLKATA
Manojit Mandal, President, Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member and Shyamal Kumar Ghosh, Member
Mahendra Prasad Gupta and Anr. – Complainants
versus
M/s. Ramawati Construction
and Ors. – Opp. Parties
Complaint Case No.884 of 2017
Decided on 10.4.2023
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.17[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.47(1)] – Services – Real Estate – Allotment of Flat / Plot – Delayed Possession – Refund of Amount ordered - When the opposite parties are also ready to make the refund of rest amount to the complainants, there is no bar to pass the order of refund in favour of the complainants in order to meet the proper justice to the parties – On facts, the complainants are entitled to get Rs.14,30,000/- only as out of total payment of Rs.24,30,000/- the opposite parties have already refunded Rs.10,00,000/- only to the complainants - It is well settled principle of law that the complainant/petitioner cannot go beyond his/her pleadings and on the basis of the said principle the complainants are entitled to get refund of Rs.11,00,000/- only – On facts, That the opposite parties 1 and 2/developers are directed to make the refund the consideration amount of Rs.11,00,000/- (eleven lakh) only to the complainants along with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of each payment till the date of full realization in the form of compensation – Complaint disposed off. [Paras 8 to 12].
Result: Complaint disposed off.
JUDGMENT
Shyamal Kumar Ghosh, Member—The instant Consumer Case has been filed by the complainants against the opposite parties praying for certain reliefs which are reproduced as under:—
(a) To refund Rs.11,00,000/-,
(b) To pay compensation Rs.5,00,000/- for harassment,
(c) To pay compensation Rs.7,00,000/- for mental agony and escalation of price of the flat elsewhere,
(d) To pay cost of the suit Rs.50,000/- and to pass such further order/orders as your Lordship may deem fit and proper,
And for this your petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.
2. The panorama of the case is that the opposite parties 1 and 2 both are recognized as the developers and the rest of the opposite parties (3 to 8) are called as land owners. A Registered Power of Attorney has been executed between the landowners and the developers wherein the ops/Ramawati Construction has been appointed as an attorney to construct a building on the land after demolishing the existing structure. Going through the registered power of attorney dated 11/09/2015 for development purpose, the complainants had an interest to purchase a flat. At the time of execution of the agreement dated 24/11/2016, the complainants have paid Rs.10,00,000/- (ten lakh) only to the ops/developers on the self same date. Thereafter the complainants have also paid Rs.14,30,000/- (fourteen lakh thirty thousand) only in different instalments. The said amount has been acknowledged by the ops/developers. The complainants have paid 50% of the consideration money. But the fact discloses that there was no chance to get the flat in habitable condition and further more that the developer has duped the complainants to accept less area of flat 1316 sft instead of 1600 sft as per agreement executed between the parties. Since the developer could not build or make any construction the building within the stipulated period of time, the complainants/petitioners could not wait for uncertain and indefinite period of time for getting the flat in question and as such the complainants have prayed for refund of money, but the developer/op did not pay any heed in this respect. One Nasiruddin, planner and estimator of Panihati Municipality has been appointed for measurement of the said flat but after measurement of the same it was found that the covered area is approximate 1316 sft and the garage measuring super built up area is 90.56 sft. But as per agreement dated 24/11/2016 it has been agreed by and between the parties that 1600 sft more or less super built up area and one go-down on the west side measuring a super built up area of 100 sft would have been provided to the complainants. But the op/developer has failed to comply with the said terms and conditions also and as such refund of money is the best option at the behest of the complainants. Till date no suitable or fruitful result has been come out and as such having no other alternative the complainants have rushed to this Commission for getting proper reliefs as prayed for.
3. The opposite parties 1 & 2 contested this case by filing written version stating inter alia that by virtue of agreement for sale the complainants have agreed to purchase the flat in the second schedule of agreement with a total consideration amount of Rs.42,00,000/- and out of which the complainants have already paid Rs.21,00,000/- only to the opposite party-2/developer till 11/012017. After execution of aforesaid agreement, the complainants instructed the op no – 2 to make some modification and alteration of the said flat in question and as per said instruction, the op no -2 has already borne the cost of Rs.1,00,000/-. The complainants, herein, has promised to pay the same to the op no – 2 at the time of execution and registration of the deed of conveyance. The opposite parties have also urged that the complainants have failed to pay full consideration money of Rs.42,00,
Indefinite period - It is not possible for the complainants to wait for indefinite period of time for getting their flat in question.
Consumers are entitled to refunds with interest when developers fail to deliver property due to one-sided contract terms viewed as unfair trade practices.
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) Incorporation of one-sided and unreasonable clauses in Apartment Buyer’s Agreement constitutes an unfair trade practice under Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act.2) Developer cannot com....
Absence of privity of contract - it cannot be construed by any stretch of imagination that the Project was not a joint venture/partnership and as such both the Opposite Parties cannot be absolved fro....
Delay in possession and unfair contractual terms lead to a mandated refund with interest for allottees.
Flat Buyers Agreement – Complainants cannot be expected to wait for possession of apartment/flat for indefinite period of time.
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.