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

DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President), Pinki, Member (Judicial) and J.P. Agrawal, Member (General)
Anushree Bhargava and Anr. – Complainants
versus
Imperia Structure Ltd. – Opp. Party
Complaint Case No.159 of 2020
Decided on 13.9.2023

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainants: Lakshmi Narain & Associates
For the Opp. Party:Mr. Arun, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Failure of Developer to comply with contractual obligation to provide flat to a flat purchaser within a contractually stipulated period amounts to a deficiency.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 12[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 47] – Real estate – Flat Buyers Agreement – Possession not delivered within stipulated period – If possession is delivered beyond 42 months or beyond 48 months, deficiency in service on part of Opposite Party shall stand proved – Opposite Party failed to handover possession of flat till date and more than 10 years have been passed from date of booking – Deficiency on part of Opposite Party stands proved – Opposite Party directed to refund entire amount paid by Complainants along with 6% interest – In addition, Rs. 1,00,000/- as cost for mental agony and harassment and litigation cost of Rs. 50,000/- also awarded. (Paras 10, 11 and 12)

Result: Complaint Case allowed.

JUDGMENT

Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President)—The present complaint has been filed by the Complainants before this commission alleging deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party and has prayed the following reliefs:—

(a) direct the opposite party to refund the aforesaid principal deposit of Rs.19,21,034/- (Rupees Nineteen Lacs twenty one thousand and thirty four Only) which they have received from the complainants by giving them false assurance for providing the flat in their so-called upcoming project, namely, “Mirage Homes, located at GH-F Pocket, Jaypee Green Sports City, SDZ,Sector-25, Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority Area, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar, Utter Pradesh;

(b) direct the opposite party to pay as compensation a sum of Rs. 20.18.872/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs Eighteen Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Two only) as interest @ 18% per annum, from the date of last deposit and till the date filing of aforesaid complaint;

(c) Direct the opposite party to pay jointly and severely a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs Only) as damages to the complainants for harassment, mental

pain, agony, trauma and loss of health

due to the deficiency on services rendered by the opposite party to the complainant;

(d) Direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs 5,00,000/- towards punitive damages in favor of the complainant.

(e) Direct the opposite party to pay the complainant pendent lite and future interest @ 12% per annum on the aforesaid amount in Para (i) to (iii) of prayer till its realization.

(f) Direct the respondent to pay Rs 50,000/- towards the legal and allied expenses incurred in prosecuting the present complaint

Such other or further reliefs/orders which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted to the complainants.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present complaint are that in month January, 2013, the Complainants booked a flat in the project ‘Mirage Homes’ of the Opposite Party, located at GH-F, Jaypee Green Sports City, Sector-25, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. The Complainants also paid a booking amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards the total consideration of the said flat, which amounted to Rs. 48,23,850/-. Subsequently, an agreement was executed between the parties on 31.10.2014, wherein the Complainants were allotted flat number 902 on the 9th floor of Tower T-2. Thereafter, the Opposite Party started demanding payments for the said flat, which were duly paid by the Complainants as and when demanded and the Complainants had deposited total amount of Rs. 19,21,034/- to the Opposite Party. Further, at the time of booking, the Opposite Party assured the Complainants of handing over possession of the said flat within 2 years, however, the possession of the said flat has not been handed over to the Complainants till date. More so, the Complainants shocked to see that the construction of the scheduled project was significantly behind schedule. Consequently, the Complainants made several communications regarding the status of the project’s construction, but the Opposite Party failed to provide any satisfactory response. Due to the Opposite Party’s inordinate delay in handing over possession of the flat, the Complainants also sent a legal notice dated 30.09.2019, requesting a refund of their hard-earned money along with interest but was of no avail.

3. During the course of proceedings, a notice was issued on 12.10.2020, and the matter was listed for 08.03.2021. Thereafter, it is evident from the order dated 08.03.2021 that Mr. Arun appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party, and he was directed to file a written statement within the stipulated period. However, the Opposite Party failed to file the written statement within the stipulated period as provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Consequently, the right of the Opposite Party to file a written statement was closed vide the order dated 04.05.2020. Since the Opp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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 Back to top