SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member
Namish Chand and Anr. – Complainant
versus
Ramprastha Promoters and
Developers Private Limited – Opp. Party
Consumer Case No.2065 of 2018
Decided on 14.2.2023

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainants:Mr. Ramnish Khanna, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:Mr. Navneet Kumar, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Indefinite time - Complainant(s) cannot be made to wait for an indefinite time and suffer financially.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(a)(i) – [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58(1)(a)(i)] – Real Estate - Allotment of Plot – Delayed Possession – Legitimate right to claim refund - In the instant case, there is an inordinate delay in handing over the possession of flat by the OP. Even now OP is not in a position to give any firm timeline for delivering possession with OC - The complainant(s) cannot be made to wait for an indefinite time and suffer financially – Also, the failure of the developer to comply with contractual obligations to provide flats within contractually stipulated period would amount to deficiency in service – Therefore, the complainant(s) in the present circumstances have a legitimate right to claim refund along with fair delay compensation/interest from the OP - Consumer Complaint is allowed/disposed off with directions. [Paras 7 to 9].

Result: Complaint allowed.

ORDER

The present Consumer Complaint (CC) has been filed by the Complainant(s) against Opposite Party (OP) as detailed above, inter alia praying for directions to the OP to:—

(i) Refund amount of Rs. 90,42,000/- as principal amount received by OP

(ii) To pay a sum in form of interest @ 18 % p.a. at minimum rate of interest on the entire amount deposited towards compensation for delay, till the refund of entire amount

(iii) Not to deduct any TDS on Interest/compensation

(iv) Pay Rs. 5,00,000/- for mental harassment and agony caused due to acts/ omissions of OP

(v) Pay a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- towards cost of litigation

2. Notice was issued to the OP on 17.09.2018. Parties filed Written Statement/Reply and Evidence by way of an Affidavit and Written Arguments/Synopsis was not filed by OP 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.

3. It is averred/stated in the Complaint that:—

(i) That the complainants on or about January 2013 vide an application form, applied for an allotment of residential plot and received an allotment letter of plot bearing no. D-161 of 200 sq. yd. in the said colony and paid the booking amount. That some of the clauses in the ABA are/were one sided, the allottees had to sign already prepared documents and some of the clauses contained therein were totally unreasonable and were in favour of OP only. The ABA was a fixed set of papers, which was asked to be signed by the allottees, including the complainants, and no modification was entertained by the OPs. On request to change the one-sided clauses, it was told that ABA has to be signed as it is and in case it is not acceptable, then the allotment will stand cancelled and earnest money will be forfeited. Seeing no option, the Complainants had to sign the agreement containing one sided clauses favouring the OP.

(ii) That the OP issued allotment letter on 13.03.2013 for D-161, and later provided with another allotment letter for new plot bearing no D-156 dated 14.12.2013. The consideration amount of the said plot was fixed that is, Rs. 94,30,000/- and promised possession of the plot within 30 months (with grace period of 6 months) from the date of signing the Buyer’s agreement which is 21.12.2013.

(iii) That the complainants have made a payment of Rs. 90,42,000/- but the possession has not been offered despite the lapse of more than 7 years. That the project is near no completion and this conduct of OP amounts to unfair trade practices, restrictive trade practices and also to gross deficiency in services. There are malpractices on part of OP to take money from buyers of plots to use it elsewhere and delay the project unreasonably for their wrongful gains, causing wrongful losses and injuries to complainants.

4. The OP in their written statement/reply stated that:

(i) The OP is engaged in business of real estate development and township development and has been developing a plotted residential colony (hereinafter referred to as the “COLONY”) in the sector 92, 93, and 95, Gurgaon, Haryana. That the OP has made considerable progress in construction of said project and delay in handing over the possession of apartment was only on account of circumstances beyond the control of OP.

(ii) That due to the change in zoning plan, the plot allotted to the complainants was changed to D-156 admeasuring 167.22 sq. mts. There was no change in dimensions but only the plot number. OP has not misappropriated any amount of money for its own benefit and have utilized the sum towards development and construction of project. That the complainants have filed the complaint with malafide intention and the intention behind purchase of the flat was merely an investment, for commercial gains. Therefore, complainants are not covered under definition of ‘consumer’.

(iii) That the com

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top