NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Sudip Ahluwalia, Presiding Member
Meera Yadav and Anr. – Complainants
versus
Emaar Mgf Land Ltd. – Opp. Party
Consumer Case No.197 of 2020
Decided on 13.4.2023
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 – Inordinate delay - Compensation granted - Complainants are certainly entitled to appropriate compensation in view of the inordinate delay in offering of possession of their dwelling Unit to them. As already noted, according to the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement, such possession was to be offered within 36 months alongwith an additional grace period of three months, which would have ended on 1.3.2016. But the possession was actually offered as late as on 12.11.2019 i.e. after a delay of nearly three years and 8 months. The Complainants are, therefore, certainly entitled to delayed compensation for this long span of time – On facts, Opposite Party is directed to deliver possession of the Apartment to the Complainants within two months from the date of this order and also to execute the requisite Deed of Conveyance in their favour within this time. The admissible delay compensation thus awarded shall also be paid within this period of two months after adjusting any maintenance charges borne by the Opposite Party. Such maintenance charges shall be adjustable from the 76th day onwards after 12.11.2019 till the date of this order – Complaint is allowed. [Paras 7 to 18].
Result: Complaint allowed.
ORDER
Sudip Ahluwalia, Presiding Member—The Complainants had booked a Duplex Apartment in the Project “Palm Gardens” constructed/developed by the Opposite Party by filling an Application Form dated 27.8.2011 and paying a booking amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-, for a total consideration of Rs. 1,33,46,079/-. The Opposite Party issued a Provisional Allotment Letter dated 6.9.2011 whereby the Complainants were allotted Apartment No. PGN-11-0003 measuring a super area of 3750 sq.ft. approx. A copy of the Buyers Agreement was sent to the Complainants for execution. However, in the midst of executing the Buyers Agreement, the Opposite Party informed the Complainants that due to inability in receiving the requisite approvals for building a Duplex Apartment, the Apartment allotted to the Complainants was being converted into a 4-BHK single Unit measuring a super area of 1900 sq.ft. The Complainants accepted the change in Apartment from Duplex to a Single Floor Apartment. The Opposite Party issued a new Allotment Letter dated 19.1.2012 whereby the Apartment allotted to the Complainants remained the same, however, the super area was changed from 3750 sq.ft. to 1900 sq.ft. Thereafter, the Opposite Party executed a fresh Apartment Buyer’s Agreement dated 16.2.2012. As per Clause 10(a) of the Agreement, the possession was to be handed over within 36 months from the date of start of construction alongwith a grace period of 03 months i.e. by 1.3.2016.
2. The Complainants made timely payments as and when demanded by the Opposite Party to the tune of Rs. 1,14,37,433/- (Rupees One Crore Fourteen lakh Thirty Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty Three Only). However, the Opposite Party failed to deliver possession within the stipulated time period and had offered possession of the Apartment vide Letter of Offer of Possession dated 12.11.2019 i.e. after a delay of nearly 04 years from the promised date of possession.
3. The Complainants visited the Project site to inspect the Apartment. To their shock and surprise, the north side of the Apartment which was to be a dedicated play area for children was completely covered by multiple 33000KW transformers. Furthermore, 1.5 acre mini golf course towards the east side of the Apartment, for which PLC was charged by the Opposite Party, was reduced to an open gymnasium. Aggrieved by the change in layout and the absence of the main elements for which the Apartment was booked, the Complainants sent a letter dated 3.12.2019 regarding their grievances. Vide said letter, the Complainants pointed out missing play area and the mini golf course and further emphasized on arbitrarily charged PLC towards corner house which was never demanded vide allotment letter dated 06.09.2011 yet was unilaterally demanded vide allotment letter dated 19.12.2012. The Opposite Party neither acknowledged nor responded to the said letter and the defects pointed out were not cured.
4. The Complainants have also raised concerns towards lack of water supply, Lack of exit road, availability of only 11KVA of power instead of approved 33 KVA and lack of drainage line. The Complainants have further averred in their Complaint that the Opposite Party has charged exorbitant and unwarranted charges in the form of Car Parking Charges and Club Membership Charges. Due to such deficient services and unfair trade practices of the Opposite Party, the Complainants had to suffer severe financial and mental stress. Hence, this Complaint has been filed by the Complainants for seeking physical possession of the Apartment complete in all respects, interest @18% p.a. from promised date of possession till date of actual possession, for waiving off of wrongly charged PLC, refund of wrongly collected charges, removal of electrical substation and other ancillary reliefs. The specific reliefs sought by the Complainants in their complaint are set out as below—
(a) Direct the Opposite Party to handover the physical possession of the Apartment to the Complainants, com
Compensation - Complainants are certainly entitled to appropriate compensation in view of the inordinate delay in offering of possession of their dwelling Unit to them.
Additional Payment – the demand of the Opposite Party for additional payment on account of the alleged increase in Super Area of the Flat was unjustified.
The court affirmed consumer rights to timely possession and reasonable compensation despite contractual waivers, emphasizing obligations of developers in real estate transactions.
Failure by the Opposite Party to deliver possession within the stipulated time constituted a deficiency in service, entitling the Complainants to a refund with interest.
Super Built-up area – The alteration in super built up area in large projects including common areas is a common feature and is acceptable if is within a reasonable variable of 5 to 10%.
(1) Possession - Complainant cannot be compelled to wait indefinitely for taking possession of the flat.(2) Consumer - Consumer cannot be kept to wait for taking possession of the apartment.
The court affirmed the consumer's rights to compensation for delayed possession despite objections on consumer status after possession was claimed.
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.