Back
SUBHASH CHANDRA
Minakshi Choudhary – Appellant
Versus
Raheja Developers Limited – Respondent
ORDER
This complaint under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ‘the Act’) has been filed alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in respect of a flat booked by the complainant in a project promoted and executed by the opposite party namely viz., ‘Raheja Revanta’ in Sector 78, Gurgaon.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the complainant booked an apartment on 17.05.2012 against an initial deposit of Rs.43,34,884/- in the said project. A floor buyer’s agreement ( in short, ‘the Agreement’) was also executed between the parties on 17.05.2012 as per which Apartment no.A-091 ad-measuring 2168.85 sq ft was allotted to the complainant for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,33,58,446/- excluding service taxes and registration. The complainant made deposits of payment amounting to Rs.1,16,03,737/- on various dates between 08.11.2011 to 26.06.2016 in 16 installments. The opposite party has not handed over the possession of the said flat despite undertaking in the Agreement vide Clause 4.2 that possession of the unit would be given within 36 months. It is submitted that the said agreement was a one sided and prepared document presented by the oppos
(1) Bald assertion – In the absence of any evidence being brought on record, merely a bald assertion that the project was delayed due to in action by the Government or its statutory organisations and....
Installment – Once the instalments were collected, the buyers are sought to be non-suited on a multitude of grounds, primarily the liability of the Government in not providing infrastructure and to c....
Valid Possession – Mere completion of structure cannot be said that the Apartment is ready for valid possession.
Committed date - the committed date has to be reckoned from the date of the sanction of building plans which includes the date of approval of the fire safety scheme.
Consumers are entitled to refunds with interest when developers fail to deliver property due to one-sided contract terms viewed as unfair trade practices.
Consumer rights include timely possession and refund in cases of inordinate delays by builders, ensuring protections under consumer law are maintained.
Earnest Money Clause – Earnest Money Clause in the Agreement being wholly one-sided and unjustified constitutes an unfair trade practice and therefore, is not binding upon the Complainant.
“Since the possession of subject flats were not delivered within the stipulated time, allottee held entitled for refund of amount deposited with interest.”
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
