Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member and Bharatkumar Pandya, Member
Sunita Malhotra – Complainant
versus
Godrej Projects Ltd. and Anr. – Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No.1011 of 2019
Decided on 11.10.2024
For the Complainant:Ms. Ishita Singh, Mr. Deepak Jain, Ms. Navya Nanda and Mr. Aditya Vijay Kumar, Advocates
For the Opp. Party:Mr. Sudhir Makkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kapil Madan, Ms. Aadhya and Mr. Akshit Narula, Advocates
For the Opp. Party No.1:Mr. Ankit K., A.R. Mr. Mayank Goel, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Decision of home buyer seeking refund does not amount to breach of contract.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(g) – Group Housing Project – Allotment of apartment – Deficiency in service – Refund of amount – Consumer – Delay in fulfilling obligations – Consumer Protection Act is a consumer-frinedly & beneficial legislation intended to address grievances of consumers – Negative burden cannot be placed on complainant to show that service available was not for commercial purpose – Even after offer of possession, 7 years have expired, but 24 meters wide sectorial road has not been constructed on the spot – There is shortcoming in fulfilling the obligations as per brochure, which amounts to deficiency in service – Buyer cannot be made to wait for indefinite period for possession – OP-1 is directed to refund entire amount deposited by complainants with interest @ 9% p.a. from date of respective deposit toll date of refund, within 2 months. (Paras 7, 11 and 12)
Result: Complaint allowed.
ORDER
Heard Ms. Ishita Singh Jain, Advocate for the complainants and Mr. Sudhir Makkar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Kapil Madan, Advocate, for the opposite parties.
2. Mrs. Sunita Malhotra has filed above complaint for declaring offer of possession dated 10.10.2017 as illegal and for directing the opposite parties to (a) refund the entire amount of Rs.20672757/- with interest @18% p.a. from the date of respective deposit till the date of refund; (b) pay Rs.2/- lacs litigation cost; and (c) any other relief, which this Commission may deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The complainant stated that her husband is an IT professional and presently working in Bahrain. Their younger daughter Garima is a practicing advocate in Delhi NCR. The complainant, therefore, was looking for a residential apartment in Delhi NCR. The opposite parties launched a group housing project in the name of “Godrej Summit”, at Sector-104, Gurgaon, Haryana, of luxurious 2, 3 4 bedrooms and penthouses with open spaces and landscape gardens cover 80 percentage of the property. Besides other attractions, the OPs, in the brochure showed that the project will have connectivity with Dwarka Expressway by 24 meters wide road, so as to reach Connaught Place within 40 to 60 minutes. Water supply connection provision from main HUDA line, Multi-purpose hall, Amphitheatre, Meditation/Yoga area, Skating rink, Billiards/Snooker room, Tennis and Badminton Courts, Sparking Swimming pool, Jogging track, Indoor games, Shopping area, Nursery and Primary School etc. Magic Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) is the owner of the project land and all the permissions/environment clearance, ‘occupation certificates’ are in the name of OP-2. Attracting with the promises made in the brochure, the complainant booked residential Flat No.D-1507, in the project “Godrej Summit”, which was changed on her request to Flat No.K-406, “Godrej Summit”, Sector-104, Gurgaon, Haryana for a consideration of Rs.11666940/-, vide allotment letter dated 20.01.2017. Looking to their requirement for settlement after retirement, the complainant also booked Flat No.L-204 in the project “Godrej Summit”. The complainant signed the Apartment Buyer Agreement (ABA) on 23.01.2017. ABA contained several new conditions, which were not in the allotment letter. Most of the clauses of the ABA were unfair, unjust and one sided, the complainant find herself unable to accept it. The complainant therefore, requested to refund her money. The OPs charges Rs.525000/- towards car parking contrary to the judgment of Supreme Court in Nehalchand Laluchand Vs. Panchali Co-operative Society, AIR 2010 SC 3607. The OPs, vide letter dated 10.10.2017 offered possession and demanded balance consideration and other charges, informing that ‘occupation certificate’ has been granted. “Occupation certificate” is conditional and Condition No.10 requires the OP to comply with all stipulations mentioned in the Environment Clearance Certificate issued vide No.SEIAA/HR/2013/611 dated 04.09.2013, by State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Haryana. The OPs did not provide copy of Environment Clearance issued vide No.SEIAA/HR/2013/611 dated 04.09.2013 as well as compliance certificate submitted by them. Operational Phrase: Condition No.1 provides that there should be no traffic congestion near the entry and exit points from the roads adjoining the proposed project site. Parking should be fully internalized and no public space should be utilised. In its compliance report, the OPs have stated that the proposed parking is fully internalized. Parking plan has already been submitted in previous compliance report of June, 2014. Entry and Exits are bell mouthed shaped and open to a 24 meters wide road. Hence traffic congestion is not anticipated. Condition S is that the project shall be operationalized only when HUDA/Local Authority will provide domestic water supply system in the area. The OPs submitted various represent
