BOMBAY STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mukesh V. Sharma, Presiding Member and
Dr. Satish A. Munde, Member
Nutan Rajesh Shelat and Anr. – Complainants
versus
Shah Group Builders Ltd. – Opp. Parties
Consumer Complaint No.134 of 2021
Decided on 11.12.2023
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Sections 2(7)(ii), 47(1) – Services – Real Estate – Allotment of Flat / Plot – Delayed Possession – Entitlement to Compensation – The Opposite Parties have failed to abide by the contractual and statutory obligations as contemplated under the provisions of MOFA, 1963 – The Complainants were deprived of their dream of own house and were suffered mental and physical harassment and financial loss at the hands of Opposite Parties for years together and were compelled to run from pillar to post. Opposite Parties have used hard earned money of the Complainants in the form of consideration for the years together – Since Opposite Parties failed to deliver legal possession of the booked Flat to the Complainants within 36 months as per clause ‘30’ of the registered Agreement for Sale dated 31/08/2016 i.e. on or before August, 2019 and further failed to abide by Clause No. ‘30’ to pay interest @15% p.a. on the amounts paid from the date of registration of the Agreement for Sale till handing over possession of the said Flat towards compensation for delayed possession, it amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as contemplated under 2(11) and 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – There is nothing on record to deny the contentions raised by the Complainants. Despite receiving entire amount of consideration towards the said Flat, Opposite Parties failed to deliver the possession within stipulated period to the Complainants and till filing of the present Consumer Complaint, thus the cause of action is continuous one and the Complainants are the ‘Consumers’ of Opposite Parties – Complaint is partly allowed. [Paras 6 to 9].
Result: Complaint partly allowed.
JUDGMENT
Dr. Satish A. Munde, Member—The Complainants have filed this Complaint u/s 34 (1) (We think this is typographical mistake. We don’t have jurisdiction u/s 34 (1). Hence, we treat it u/s 47 (1)) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘said Act’) claiming themselves as Consumers u/s 2(7)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Opposite Party No.1 is a Private Limited Company of which Opposite Parties Nos.2 to 4 are the Directors. The Complainants have alleged non-compliance of contractual and statutory obligations by the Opposite Parties and thereby committing deficiency in service and unfair trade practice within the meaning of Section 2(11) and 2(47) of the said Act.
2. The brief facts of the Consumer Complaint are as under—
The Complainants had booked Flat No. D/807, 8th Floor, D Wing, in the project known as ‘Shah Kingdom’ situated at Plot Nos.23, 24, 25, and 26 in Sector 20, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai by making advance payment of Rs.10 lakhs vide cheque dated 20/07/2016 drawn on HDFC Bank out of total consideration of Rs.1,51,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty-One Lakhs Only) vide receipt dated 20/07/2016 issued by the Opposite Parties. After booking of the said Flat Opposite Parties immediately demanded vide letter dated 19/07/2016 to make slab wise payment of Rs.1,27,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty-Seven Lakhs Only).
Hence, the Complainants were compelled to take friendly loans from their relatives and friends for making urgent payment to the Opposite Parties.
The Complainants have contended that only after receiving entire consideration of the said Flat i.e. Rs.1,51,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty-One Lakhs Only) the Opposite Parties had executed Agreement for Sale on 31/08/2016 in respect of the said Flat. It is contended that the Complainants had paid amount of Rs.7,55,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Fifty-Five Thousand Only) towards stamp duty and Rs.31,660/-(Rupees Thirty-One Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Only) towards registration charges and accordingly Agreement for Sale was registered on 31/08/2016.
The Complainants have contended that as per clause 30 of the said Agreement for Sale Opposite Parties had agreed to hand over possession of the Flat within 36 months from the date of execution of agreement i.e. on or before August, 2019, failing which according to Clause No.30 of the said Agreement for Sale Opposite Parties have agreed to pay interest @15% p.a. to the Complainants on the amounts paid from the date of registration of agreement till handing over possession of the said Flat towards compensation for delayed possession.
The Complainants further contended that since Opposite Parties failed to hand over possession of the said Flat, they sent legal notice dated 17/02/2021 to the Opposite Parties, which Opposite Parties failed to comply and reply. Hence, the Complainants have filed present Consumer Complaint.
As per prayer clause ‘B’ of the Complaint, Complainants have claimed legal possession of Flat No. D/807, 8th floor, D Wing, in the project known as ‘Shah Kingdom’, situated on Plot Nos. 23, 24, 25 and 26 in Sector 20, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai alongwith occupation certificate and building completion certificate in respect of D Wing building. In the alternative, the Complainants have claimed refund of entire amount of Rs.1,51,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty-One Lakhs Only) alongwith interest @24% p.a. from the date of respective payment till its realization.
As per prayer clause ‘C’ of the Complaint- Complainants have claimed interest @15% p.a. on Rs.1,51,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty-One Lakhs Only) from 31/08/2016 till its realization.
Or in the alternative Complainants have prayed compound interest @ 2.5% p.m. on the dues, if Complainants would have not paid the amounts on demand of Opposite Parties, as an equity as per clauses 14 and 17 of the said Agreement for Sale.
As per prayer clause ‘D’ of the Complaint-Complainants have claimed amount of Rs.10 lakhs towar
Commercial Purpose - Mere allegation, that the purchase of the said flat is for commercial purpose, cannot be the ground to reject the present consumer complaint.
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.
Absence of prayer “ Even in absence of specific prayer, this commission can grant a relief which is justified and warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(1) Housing Construction or business activity – Housing construction or building activity carried on by a private or statutory body constitutes ‘service’ within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) of the Ac....
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.