WEST BENGAL STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Ajeya Matilal Presiding Member and
Soma Bhattacharjee, Member
Swasti Sovan
Bhowmick and Anr. – Complainants
versus
M/s. Shelter Infra
Projects Ltd. and Ors. – Opp. Parties
Complaint Case No.CC/569/2016
Decided on 1.8.2023
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 17[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 47(1)] – Services – Real Estate – Allotment of Flat/Plot – Delayed Possession – Deficiency of Service Attributed – As per the written agreement, the developers were to get the plan sanctioned by 18 months of the execution of the agreement and also complete the said flat by 30 months of the date of plan sanction. However, neither the plan has been sanctioned nor has the flat been handed over as on date. Hence, there is definitely deficiency in service on the part of the OP/developer – Opposite Parties are hereby directed to refund part consideration of Rs.12,81,518/- already paid by the complainants along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of agreement till the date of realisation – Complaint disposed off. [Paras 4 to 16].
Result: Complaint disposed off.
ORDER
Soma Bhattacharjee, Member—The complaint case CC/569/2016 has been filed by the complainants Swasti Sovan Bhowmick and Madhuri Bhowmick against the OPs M/s Shelter Intra Projects Ltd. and M/s MJM Nirman Pvt. Ltd. Today is fixed for delivery of final order. The complainants have prayed for refund of the consideration paid, interest on the consideration, compensation for harassment and litigation cost.
2. To state the case concisely, the complainants paid Rs.12,81,518/- as earnest money for purchase of a flat measuring about 1915 sq. ft. approx, on the 17th floor of Tower 1 of Ananda Dhara in Mouza Barhans Fartabad and Kandarpapur Boalia in several plots under different Khatian, J.L. No. 47 & 49, Touzi No. 109, P.S.- Sonarpur, Dist- South 24 Parganas and one covered four wheeler parking space, as per agreement dt. 23.10.2013.
3. After payment of the earnest money by three different cheques bearing no. 000002 dt. 21.07.2010 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank amounting to Rs.2,96,000/-, bearing no. 560346 dt. 21.07.2010 drawn on HDFC Bank amounting to Rs.3,85,518/-, bearing no. 861730 dt. 27.07.2010 drawn on IDBI Bank amounting to Rs.6,00,000/- the complainants and the developers/OPs executed an agreement dt. 23.10.2013 and as per the said agreement the OPs are to obtain sanction of building plan within 18 months from that date and the flat is to be constructed within 30 months from the date of sanction. However, in spite of several reminders etc the OP/ developers failed to get the plan sanctioned and/or complete the building, when the CC/569/2016 was filed. Each time the complainants met the developers they gave false assurances that the project would commence soon. Then they started maintaining complete silence on the issue.
4. On 12.11.2016 when the complainants approached the OPs for refund of their money along with interest and compensation, the OPs openly refused them. Hence, cause of action arose on 12.11.2016 and is continuing till today.
5. The value of the flat stands at Rs.64,07,590/- and that of covered parking space at Rs.3 lakh, totalling Rs.67,07,590/-. As per the agreement the developers are to pay 12% p.a. simple interest upon the earnest money of Rs.12,81,518/- in case of delay in completion of the project.
6. The OPs appeared and contested this case by filing W.V, evidence on affidavit etc. Complainants filed an amended copy of complaint petition for including property value, interest component on consideration paid, litigation cost and amount of compensation and also have adduced their evidence and there does not appear any inconsistency in their evidence. Considered the evidence adduced by both sides. Heard their arguments and considered.
7. The points for decision are:—
• Whether the complainants are consumers
• Whether there is deficiency in service
• Whether the complainants are entitled to get any relief
8. The complainants have paid part of the consideration money to the OP/developers and thereby they are consumers in terms of the C.P. Act, 1986.
9. As per the written agreement, the developers were to get the plan sanctioned by 18 months of the execution of the agreement and also complete the said flat by 30 months of the date of plan sanction. However, neither the plan has been sanctioned nor has the flat been handed over as on date. Hence, there is definitely deficiency in service on the part of the OP/developer.
10. Since the complainants have not received service from the developer/OPs within the stipulated period, complainants are entitled to relief.
11. Therefore the complaint case being no. CC/569/2016 allowed on contest.
12. Hence it is ordered
13. The Opposite Parties are hereby directed to refund part consideration of Rs.12,81,518/- already paid by the complainants along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of agreement till the date of realisation. Litigation cost of Rs.50,000/- is also to be paid by the Opposite Parties to the complainants. The Opposite Parties will also pay Rs.3,25,00
Deficiency of Service - neither the plan has been sanctioned nor has the flat been handed over as on date. Hence, there is definitely deficiency in service on the part of the OP/developer.
Flat Buyers Agreement – Complainants cannot be expected to wait for possession of apartment/flat for indefinite period of time.
The court affirmed that the complainant had the right to a timely refund and compensation due to the OP's delay in property possession, rejecting OP's defense of force majeure.
Valid Redressal - The flat purchasers cannot be made to wait for inordinate period of time hoping to get possession and that refund of amounts deposited is a valid redressal.
Indefinite period - It is not possible for the complainants to wait for indefinite period of time for getting their flat in question.
Deficiency in services occurs when contractual obligations regarding timely delivery are not met, allowing for consumer redress.
A person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of the flat allotted to him and is entitled to seek refund of the amt. paid by him along with compensation
Failure to deliver property as promised in agreement constitutes grounds for claiming refund and compensation under consumer protection laws.
Deficiencies in service and unfair trade practices exist where payment was accepted without agreement execution and without timely possession provision.
Delays in possession of real estate mandate full refund to consumers under the Consumer Protection Act.
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.