Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
A.P. Sahi, President and Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Member
Lt. Col (Retd) Rakesh Bansal and Anr. – Complainants
versus
Chairman Management Committee, AWHO and Anr. – Opp. Party
Consumer Case No.474 of 2016
Decided on 26.11.2024
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant: Col. R. Bansal, In Person
For the Opp. Party:Mr. A.K. Tewari, Advocate with Mr. Rahul Burman, Advocate with Mr. R.B. Prasad, Rep. of AWHO
IMPORTANT POINT
Valid Possession – Giving possession / offering possession to the allottees without obtaining requisite completion certificate / occupation certificate is not a valid possession / offer of possession.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(1)(a)(i) [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58(1)(a)(i)] – Services – Allotment of Flat/Plot – Delayed Possession – In the present case, value of goods and services and compensation claimed by complainant in the complaint exceeds Rs. One Crore – National Commission has the pecuniary jurisdiction – The contention that complainant is not a consumer and it is not consumer dispute as he has purchased the unit for commercial/investment purposes is also rejected as no such evidence has been adduced by the OP(s) in this regard – Also, the complaint has been filed jointly by complainant No.1 and complainant No.2 and we are ordering refund/payments as per this order to complainant No.1 directly – Further, giving possession/offering possession to be allottees without obtaining requisite completion certificate/occupation certificate is not a valid possession/offer of possession – Although some cost overruns in such projects are understandable, but in the present case, cost escalation was about 190% (from Rs.14,70,000/- as per original letter dated 14.10.2004 to Rs.41,30,000/- as per letter dated 20.04.2010. The complainant No.1 paid Rs.41,30,000 /- out of the finally fixed cost of Rs.44,65,265/- which constitutes more than 90% only an amount of Rs.3,48,302/- remained to be paid – In the given circumstances narrated in the preceding paras, Complainant No.1 was justified in withholding the balance payment of Rs.3,48,302/- – Also, Action of OP in cancelling the allotment on account of non payment of balance amount of Rs.3,48,302/- and non submission of some documents, in the absence of a valid completion certificate/occupation certificate at the time of offering possession to the complainant was not correct and cannot be sustained – Thus, the said unit having been cancelled 10 years back, it is not feasible to order possession of this unit to the complainant No.1 and neither a prayer for possession of this unit has been made in the complaint – Compliant allowed with directions. [Paras 20 to 41]
Result: Complaint allowed.
ORDER
Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Member—The present Consumer Complaint (CC) has been filed by the Complainant against Opposite Parties (OPs) as detailed above, inter alia praying for directions to the OP(s):-
a. to pay a sum of Rs.1,74,74,910/- towards cost of similar dwelling unit in Bangalore (North) since dwelling unit of complainant is located in Bangalore (North).
b. to pay a sum of Rs.12,36,000/- for lost returns / rent w.e.f. 01.01.2008 to 01.04.2016 (100 months)@ Rs.8/- per sq. ft - 8 x 1545 x 100
c. to pay Rs.60,000/- incurred by the complainant for the visits from Dehradun to Bangalore
d. to pay the complainant Rs.12 lacs (Rs.6.00 lacs each) towards compensation / damages for mental agony and harassment and also 18% interest on the amounts till payment.
2. Notice was issued to the OP(s). Both the OPs are same organization, i.e. Army Welfare Housing Organisation (AWHO), represented by two authorities / officers, hence they will also be referred to as OP / AWHO hereinafter. The main booking / allotment was in the name of Complainant no.1, with Complainant No.2 as the nominee. Hence, any reference to Complainant hereinafter would be reference to complainant no.1, who was the allottee. Parties filed Written Statement/Reply, Rejoinder, Evidence by way of an Affidavit and Written Arguments/Synopsis etc. as per details given in the Table at Annexure-A. The details of the flat allotted to the Complainant (s) /other relevant details, based on pleadings of the parties and other records of the case are also given in Annexure - A.
3. During the pendency of this Consumer Complainant, complainant no.2 Smt. Kumud Bansal expired and an IA No. 1993 of 2023 was filed for bringing LRs of complainant no.2 on record, which includes complainant no.1, two sons and one daughter of the deceased complainant. The application was allowed on 02.05.2023 and amended memo of parties was filed.
4. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the pleadings of the parties and other case records are that Complainants in the year 2004 paid registration amount of Rs.90,500/- to the OP for housing project in Sector 82, Noida, U.P. However, due to inability on the part of the OP to provide a dwelling unit at Noida, complainants had to apply for change from Noida to Bangalore project and the OP carried out the changeover. The complainant booked an independent house in the housing project, namely, Yelahanka, Bangalore, measuring 300 sq. yds and OP allotted fresh membership registration number to the complainant.
5. It is the case of the complainant that OP issued booking letter without technical brochure in respect of said housing project but the said booking letter did not contain the details of house for which booking letter was issued. The complainant were required to pay Rs.3,65,000/- in two instalments and the completion of project was mentioned as 3 years in the said booking letter. The cost of the dwelling unit was Rs.14.7 lacs including cost of land but excluding escalation and cost of car parking.
6. The complainant paid the 1st and 2nd instalments of Rs.1,82,500/- and Rs.1,82,500/- and requested the OP to furnish full details of the house, plot and construction schedule of the dwelling unit alongwith technical brochure but OP failed to furnish the same. The OP had collected 31% of the cost of the dwelling unit without disclosing any information / details of the house, plot and construction of the dwelling unit. The OP revised the planning of the project and named it as Yelahanka project A and B and for the first time mentioned the super area i.e. 1520 sq.ft. The OP also revised the cost of the dwelling unit from Rs.14,70,000/- to Rs.18,90,000/- without assigning any reason for price increase.
7. On 06.01.2006 and after collecting 31% of the housing cost, the OP submitted an application before Bangalore International Airport Area Planning Authority (BIAAPA) for approval of their residential project. The BIAAPA issued a commencement certificate in respect of the
