NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
R.K. Agrawal, President
Ansal Crown Heights Flats Buyers
Association (Regd.) and Ors. – Appellants
versus
Ansal Crown Infrabuild
India Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
Execution Application No.194 of 2022
In CC/2600/2018
Decided on 5.12.2022
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 25[Consumer Protection Act, 2019- Section 71] – Services – Real Estate – Allotment of Flat / Plot – Delayed Possession – Enforcement of Orders - Opposite Parties/Judgment Debtors have not complied with the directions given by this Commission in the Final Order and Judgment dated 28.02.2022. They have no plausible reason for the same and are trying to buy time to comply with the Final Order and Judgment passed in the Consumer Complaints. They are under an obligation to comply with the directions given in the said Order. Over and above the period of six weeks given to the Opposite Parties/Judgment Debtors to comply with the said Order, more than eight months have already passed but they have not complied with the same, which amounts to disobedience of the Order and they need no indulgence in the present proceedings – Therefore, prayer made by the Opposite Parties/Judgment Debtors, seeking time to generate funds after selling the unsold inventory of the Project and to comply with the Order, one month’s time from today, i.e. by 05.01.2023, is granted to them to do the needful and to comply with the directions given in the Final Order and Judgment dated 28.02.2022, failing which, the Complainant Association/Decree Holders shall be at liberty to file an appropriate application for taking action against the Opposite Parties/Judgment Debtors under Sections 71 and 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Application disposed off. [Paras 7 to 11].
Result: Application allowed.
ORDER
The present Execution Applications has been filed by Ansal Crown Heights Flat Buyer’s Association, Complainant/ Decree Holder against M/s Ansal Crown Infrabuild India Pvt Ltd and its Directors (hereinafter referred to as Opposite Parties / Judgment Debtors).
2. Since the facts and question of law involved in these Execution Applications are similar except for minor variations in the dates and events, these Execution Applications are being disposed of by this common Order. However, for the sake of convenience, facts are taken from Execution Application 195 of 2022 in Consumer Complaint No. 86 of 2018.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the Complainant is a voluntary Consumer Association registered under the Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act, 2012. That the members of the Complainant Association applied and booked residential Apartments in the Group Housing Project namely, “Ansal Crown Heights” proposed to be developed by Opposite Parties. It was alleged that despite having received 85% to 96% of the total sale consideration of the respective units allotted to the Members of the Complainant Association, the Opposite Party Developer/Judgment Debtor failed to deliver the possession of the Flats within stipulated period. In terms of the Flat Buyer’s Agreement executed between the Parties from 07.03.2010 till 10.06.2013 on various dates, the Possession ought to have been handed over to the Complainant between December, 2013 till June 2016. Being aggrieved by actions/inactions of the Opposite Parties, Allottees through the Complainant Association filed the subject Consumer Complaints before this Commission, alleging deficiency in service and seeking possession of the units complete in all aspects along with delayed compensation and costs and in the alternate, refund of the amount paid along with interest and Compensation. Opposite Parties filed their Written Submissions denying allegations as enlisted in the Complaints. This Commission vide Final Order and Judgment dated 28.02.2022, allowed both the Complaints and directed as under:—
“(i) Both the Complaints are allowed.
(ii) The Opposite Developer shall complete the Project in all respects in terms of Agreement and hand over the possession of allotted Flats/Apartments to the Members of the Association along with necessary documents including occupation certificate.
(iii) The Opposite Party Developer shall pay delay compensation in the form of interest @9% p.a. on the amount deposited by the Members of the Complainant Association from the committed date of possession till the actual date of offer of possession.
(iv) The Opposite Party Developer shall work out the Compensation till the date of passing of this order, after making adjustment of the outstanding charges payable by the Members of the Complainant Association in terms of the agreement/payment schedule and make the payment of the balance compensation amount, if any, to the Complainants within eight weeks from today. However, if any, balance amount is to be paid by the Members of the Complainant Association as per above calculation, the same shall be paid by them within the same period.
(v) The delay compensation from the date of passing of this order till the actual date of offer of possession shall be calculated at the time of final payment after adjusting the outstanding amount, if any, payable by the Members of the Complainant Association in terms of payment Schedule opted by them or in terms of Agreement.
(vi) The Opposite Party shall pay Rs.25,000/- as the cost of litigation at the time of final calculation to all the Members of the Complainant Association.
OR
(vii) If the Members of the Complainant Association are not interested to wait any more for taking possession of the allotted Apartment and they want refund of the their deposited amount, the Opposite Party Developer sha
The Builder must fulfill contractual obligations and cannot enforce unfair terms; delayed possession warrants compensation and potential refunds to buyers.
The court affirmed the obligation of the Developer to complete the construction and deliver possession promptly, along with compensatory measures for delays.
(i) the Opposite Party Developer shall complete the construction of allotted flats/Apartments in all respect within a period of six months from today and shall offer possession to the Complainants af....
Consumers are entitled to timely possession of purchased property and cannot wait indefinitely for possession; failure to deliver justifies a refund with interest.
The JD Developer cannot evade responsibility for noncompliance due to force majeure claims when clear obligations exist under the settlement agreement.
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.