NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member and Dr. Sadhna Shanker, Member
Megacity Apartment Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – Appellants
versus
Sudeep Kumar Pathak and Anr. – Respondents
First Appeal No.1377 of 2018
(Against the Order dated 21/06/2018 in Complaint No. 593/2017 of the State Commission West Bengal)
Decided on 10.10.2024
Allotment of flat – Delay in allotment – Deficiency in service on part of developer – Modification in award of rate of interest – There is clear deficiency of service on part of developer – Rate of interest @ 6% p.a. from promised date of delivery till date of occupancy certificate i.e. 16.3.2020 would be just & apt & reasonable – Order of SC is liable to be modified to this extent only. (Paras 11, 13, 14, 15)
Result: Appeal disposed of.
ORDER
Dr. Sadhna Shanker, Member.—This appeal has been filed under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) in challenge to the Order dated 21.06.2018 of the State Commission in complaint no. 593 of 2017, whereby the complaint was disposed of.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘developer’) and learned counsel for the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the ‘complainants’) and have perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 21.06.2018 of the State Commission and the memorandum of appeal.
3. There is a delay of 10 days in filing the present appeal.
No application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been filed. However, in the interest of justice, the delay of 10 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
4. The facts, in brief, of the case are that on 01.11.2012, the complainants entered into an agreement with the developer to purchase a self-contained flat measuring about 1295 sq. ft. more or less on the 6th floor situated at Block – Vibhuti, Phase – II, together with one covered car parking space on the ground floor under project ‘Deeshari Megacitgy’ situated at Holding No.116, Dwarir Road, South Jagaddal, P.S. Sonaripur, Kolkta, Dist. – South 24 Parganas within the local limits of Ward No. 24 of Rajpur-Sonarpur Municipality for a total consideration of Rs.34,55,125/-. The complainants have already paid a total sum of Rs.32,11,713/-. As per agreement, the possession of the flat would be handed over by December 2015 in a habitable condition. It is alleged that despite expiry of stipulated period, the developer did not take any step to hand over the subject flat to the complainants. In the agreement, it was also agreed that the developer will pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- only per month in case the developer failed to hand over the subject flat by December 2015. Despite this, the complainants alleged that they have been paying licence fee of Rs.17,000/- only per month till July 2016 and the same had been enhanced to Rs.17,500/- only per month since August, 2016 till June 2017 and at present the complainants are paying the licence fee of Rs.17,000/- only per month to his present landlord with effect from July 2017. It is alleged that the complainants have made several correspondences with the developer regarding demand of amount of compensation of Rs.8000/- only per month from January, 2016 onwards in terms of the agreement but all went in vain.
5. Hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the developer, the complainants have filed a complaint before the State Commission with the following prayer:—
1. For a declaration that Opposite Party No.1 has committed negligence and deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.
2. For a direction upon the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,12,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Twelve Thousand only) as compensation from January, 2016 to February 2017 in terms of the said Agreement for Sale dated 1.11.2012 and to pay the said compensation at the rate of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand) per month to the complainants in terms of the aforementioned Agreement for sale dated 01.11.2012 till the actual lawful physical possession of the said Flat described in the schedule below is given to the complainants.
3. For a direction upon Opposite Parties to pay interest on Rs.32,11,713/- on such rates as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper.
4. For a direction upon the opposite parties to pay the sum of the rent and/or licence fees on and from 1st January, 2016 to till the date of handing over of lawful possession of the flat booked at Deeshari Megacity Project morefully described in the schedule below to the complainants.
5. For a direction upon the opposite parties to complete the Building Block Vibhuti, Phase II and the said flat morefully described in the schedule hereunder within a specified time which this Hon’ble Commission thinks fit and proper.
6.
Wing Commander Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleya Sultana and Ors. vs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd.
DLF Home Developers Ltd. vs. Capital Greens Flat Buyers Assn.
Allotment of flat – Deficiency of service – Delay in allotment – Modification in rate of interest.
The court confirmed the right to interest for delayed possession, noting the absence of force majeure and completion certificate.
Deficiency in Service – Deficiency in service is manifest as possession has not been offered by the respondents despite payment of nearly 90% of the consideration agreed upon between the parties.
:(1) Standard Compensation Rate – In cases where the Allottee has already taken possession of the unit, compensation for the delay should not be excessive.(2) Overlapping Heads of Damages – Consumer ....
Non-availability of the Occupancy/Completion Certificate points to the deficiency on the part of the Appellant.
Interest – It is well established principle that the interest in the form of interest should be just and equitable and commensurate with the loss and injury.
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.