NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member
Veena Jain – Petitioner
versus
Country Colonisers
Private Limited and Ors. – Respondents
Revision Petition No.495 of 2021
(Against the Order dated 05/04/2021 in Appeal No. 93/2021 of the State Commission Punjab)
Decided on 4.11.2024
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 69 – Housing project – Deficiency in service/Unfair trade Practice – Delay in completion & handing over actual physical possession of apartment – Refund of amount – Complaint not time barred – Both for a below went wrong, District Commission in dismissing the complaint & State Commission in dismissing the appeal on grounds of complaint being time barred – Orders of Forum & State Commission cannot be sustained & same set aside – OP-Respondent directed to refund the entire amount paid by Complainant-petitioner with interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. date of each deposit till date of refund.(Para 16)
Result: Complaint allowed.
ORDER
The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above, against the order dated 05.04.2021 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 93 of 2021 in which order dated 02.03.2021 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mohali (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 1457 of 2020 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 05.04.2021 and 02.03.2021 of the State Commission and District Forum respectively.
2. While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Appellant before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Forum and the Respondent(s) (hereinafter also referred to as Opposite Party No. 1, 2 and 3) were Respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 respectively before the State Commission and Opposite Party No. 1, 2 and 3 before the District Forum.
3. Notice was issued to the Respondent(s) on 02.08.2021. Parties filed Written Arguments on 23.01.2023 and 22.09.2023 (Petitioner) and 23.12.2022 (Respondent-1) respectively.
4. Brief facts of the case, as presented by the Complainant and as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that:—
(i) Petitioner applied for an Apartment in Group Housing Project namely “Wave Gardens”, Mohali of the Respondents at the cost of Rs.1,32,63,750/-. Provisionally, Petitioner was allotted Hibiscus, Apartment No. 001, Ground Floor, Type Duplex measuring 3275 sq. ft.
(ii) As per Sub-clause 5.1 of Clause 5 of Apartment Allotte(s) Agreement dated 07.11.2012, Respondent were to develop the said project within 30 months along with six months’ grace period from the date of the said agreement and the possession of the Apartment was to be delivered on or before 06.11.2015.
(iii) Payments made by the Petitioner to the Respondent on the following dates:
| Date | Amount | Mode of Payment |
| 01.08.2012 | Rs.2,00,000/- | Cheque No. 191975 |
| 08.11.2013 | Rs.27,34,719/- | RTGS |
| 14.02.2014 | Rs.13,52,748/- | Cheque No. 276465 |
| 24.05.2014 | Rs.5,00,000/- | RTGS |
| 17.07.2014 | Rs.5,00,000/- | RTGS |
| 01.09.2014 | Rs.2,83,369/- | Cheque No. 306235 |
| 01.09.2014 | Rs.7,90,000/- | Cheque No. 234386 |
| 09.09.2014 | Rs.60,000/- | Cheque No. 181791 |
| 09.09.2014 | Rs.1,30,000/- | Cheque No. 306237 |
| 09.09.2014 | Rs.3,00,000/- | Cheque No. 234387 |
| Total | Rs.68,50,836/- |
|
(iv) In December, 2015, Petitioner visited the site and found no development which was contrary to Sub-clause 5.1 of clause 5 of the Apartment Allotte(s) Agreement and Respondents failed to obtain the Completion Certificate/Occupation Certificate.
(v) On 15.01.2016, Petitioner received a letter from the Respondents which was issued in routine manner asking to deposit a further amount of Rs.42,28,062.94/-, for which Respondent told Petitioner to avoid it.
(vi) Petitioner kept on waiting for about two years for the completion of her apartment but was shocked to receive another letter dated 07.07.2018 stating Respondents were giving one-time interest waiver scheme to the Petitioner on the outstanding payable amount to which Respondent informed the Petitioner that she need not to pay any amount till the completion and handing over the actual physical possession of the apartment.
(vii) In January, 2020, Petitioner asked the Respondents for the refund of amount along with up to date interest which was assured by the Respondents also to return the amount within a period of four months but due to lock down staring from the month of March, 2020, all communications between the Petitioner and the Respondents stopped.
(viii) On 06.07.2020, Petitioner received a letter from Respondents for handing over possession of the apartment, for which the Respondents had already agreed to refund amount in the month of January, 2020.
(ix) On 07.08.2020, Petitioner f
Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Govindan Raghavan
Sesh Nath Singh vs. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Coop. Bank Ltd.
Ireo Grace Realtech Private Limited vs. Abhishek Khanna and Ors.
Specified time - Therefore when possession of the allotted plot/flat/house is not delivered within the specified time, the allottee is entitled to a refund of the amount paid, with reasonable Interes....
Consumers are entitled to refunds for unreasonable delays in property possession, affirming their rights under contracts.
Occupancy Certificate – Thus an allottee/consumer was entitled to seek refund of the amount deposited by him with the Opposite Party since the Builder had failed to fulfill his contractual obligation....
Failure to deliver possession constitutes deficiency in service, validating consumer refunds with interest.
(1) Contract - A term of a contract, will not be final and binding if it is shown that the consent to the said term was not really voluntary, if the person giving consent had no other choice. (2) Nom....
Pecuniary jurisdiction – it is clear that for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction, the value of services hired or availed plus compensation shall be the value for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdict....
The ruling affirms that delivery of possession must align with statutory obligations, including the provision of necessary occupancy certificates, which are essential for validating consumer rights i....
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.