NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Sudip Ahluwalia, Presiding Member
Parveen Khatoon and Anr. – Complainants
versus
M/s. Paramount Propbuild
Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – Opp. Party
Consumer Case No.575 of 2020
Decided on 28.3.2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(1)(a)(i)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58(1)(a)(i)] – Real Estate – Delay in Delay in delivery of possession of apartments – On a careful analysis of letter offering possession becomes vital. In the said letter dated 19.6.2017 (Annexure R-6), it is seen that on the last page, it has been mentioned “the finishing work of the Unit is likely to take approximately 90-120 days. In order to maintain the freshness of the Unit the only final quote of paint finishing of flooring, installation of bath room fitting, hardware accessories and final clearing of the Unit shall be done during this period only after clear of dues by you.” It is therefore, clear that while offering possession, the Opposite Party was itself conscious that the Unit in question was still not complete or in a habitable condition, although the same was undertaken to be made completely habitable after doing all the finishing works within 90-120 days from the date of final payment – In this over view of the matter, it would be difficult to categorically blame only one of the parties for all the un-pleasantness which has occurred between them till filing of the complaint and even thereafter. It may be mentioned in this regard that the undertaking to deliver actual possession in 90-120 days after full payment was given by the concerned Allottees ex facie is a rather unfair condition although it has been described by the Ld. Counsel for Opposite Party as the “normal market price.”, since admittedly, the Completion Certificate was available with the Opposite Party long before offer of possession made in June.2017 – It would therefore, appear fair and equitable that neither side be severely penalized for the unfortunate state of affairs, since both the sides have played their own contributory parts leading to this situation. The Complaint is therefore allowed in part by firstly directing the Complainants to return the original documents pertaining to allotment of previous Unit No.C-229-A to the Opposite Party. [Paras 10 to 23].
Result: Complaint disposed off.
ORDER
Sudip Ahluwalia, Member—This Complaint has been filed under Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party and seeking fresh allotment/possession letter along with other ancillary reliefs.
2. The factual background, in brief, is that upon the Complainants’ son having reached a marriageable age, they sought a larger residence and approached the Opposite Party for purchase of a Unit in the ‘Paramount Golfforeste’ Project at Plot No. BGH-A, Surajpur, Site-C (Extn.), Housing Sector, Greater Noida, U.P. The Complainant No. 2, who was running an automobile workshop in Noida, decided to purchase a Unit in the said Project based on the Opposite Party’s representations and assurances. Consequently, the Complainants booked and secured allotment of Unit No. C-229-A in the Project for Rs. 96,29,375/-. A loan of Rs. 56,26,636/- was obtained and disbursed to the Opposite Party on 31.07.2016 by Union Bank of India, later transferred to HDFC Bank.
3. The Opposite Party issued an Allotment Letter dated 09.07.2016, stating that the possession would be handed over within six months, with pre-EMI to be paid by the Opposite Party under the subvention scheme. After initial payment, the Opposite Party ceased pre-EMI payments. As per Clause 33 of the Allotment Letter, the Opposite Party is obligated to compensate the Complainants for possession delays.
4. On 19.06.2017, an offer of possession for Unit No. C-229A was issued, but on inspection in March and June 2018, the Complainants found a substandard construction. Following complaints, the Opposite Party offered to transfer the booking to Unit No. C-433, with assurances of early possession. However, no steps were taken to effect the transfer or complete civil work and fitments. The Opposite Party demanded payments for Unit No. C-229A, but the Complainants requested completion of construction before paying dues. The Opposite Party failed to pay interest under the subvention scheme, as per the Allotment Letter term. Despite clear records of payments, the Opposite Party charged an additional amount of Rs. 1,50,980/-, issuing an acknowledgment on 09.08.2018.
5. The Complainants agreed to a proposal for acquiring Unit No. C-433, instead of C-229-A, but the Opposite Party failed and neglected to issue a new Allotment Letter, and made no progress on the civil work. The Complainants, forced to rent another Unit, faced pressure for payment without possession of Unit No. C-433. The Opposite Party, instead of addressing the Complainants’ concerns, demanded surrender of Unit No. C-229-A documents for a new Allotment Letter for Unit No. C-433. Despite responses from the Complainants, the Opposite Party failed to provide an Allotment Letter or outstanding dues details. Following a Legal Notice on 02.08.2019 (erroneously dated as 02.08.2018), the Opposite Party harassed the Complainants without completing the necessary work in Unit No. C-433. Forced to rent another Unit, the Complainants faced undue pressure and false assurances. They nevertheless requested possession of Unit No. C-433, which remained uninhabitable. The Opposite Party’s actions thus amount to unfair and restrictive trade practices, deficiency in services, and deliberate delays causing wrongful losses and injuries to the Complainants.
6. Hence, they have approached this Commission and sought the following reliefs -
“(a) Direct the Opposite Party to issue fresh allotment and possession letters in respect of Unit No. C-433 in the project namely Paramount Golfforeste, Plot No. BGH-A, Surajpur, Site C (Extn.), Housing Sector, Greater Noida, U.P.; and
(b) Direct the Opposite Party to carryout civil work and fitments in Unit No. C-433 and give physical possession of the same to the Complainants at the earliest possible; and
(c) Direct the Opposite Party to return/adjust an amount of Rs.25,78,762/- (Twenty Five Lakhs Seventy Eight Thousand and Sev
“Where after of possession is made along with occupation certificate even of there is delay in said after the allottees of flat cannot refuse to take possession.”
Adequate Compensation Clauses – Inadequate Clauses are not applicable, the Complainants are to be adequately compensated.
Writ at large - Deficiency in service in delay in delivery of the flats booked by complainants against consideration is thus writ large.
Failure by the Opposite Party to deliver possession within the stipulated time constituted a deficiency in service, entitling the Complainants to a refund with interest.
Compensation - Complainants are certainly entitled to appropriate compensation in view of the inordinate delay in offering of possession of their dwelling Unit to them.
Delayed Possession - possession has not been offered to the Complainants and there is inordinate delay of over 9 years in handing over possession to the Complainants. They are entitled to a reasonabl....
The court affirmed consumer rights to timely possession and reasonable compensation despite contractual waivers, emphasizing obligations of developers in real estate transactions.
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.