Back
A. P. SAHI, BHARATKUMAR PANDYA
Arunima Palace Residents Welfare Association (Regd. ) – Appellant
Versus
Tarunika Gaur Housing & Constructions Ltd. – Respondent
Key Points: - The judgment holds that an RWA has consumer status and locus standi to file complaints on behalf of its members for common facilities (!) (!) (!) . - It treats non-provision of completion certificate as a continuing wrong/continuing cause of action, extending or interrupting limitation (!) (!) (!) . - It establishes that brochure promises are binding enticements and cannot be fully nullified by allotment letters or MOUs; brochure promises regarding common amenities remain actionable (!) (!) (!) . - The MOU dated 20.01.2013 is interpreted as extending obligations to complete promised facilities and upgrade deficiencies by a specified date (!) (!) (!) . - The complaint’s allegations of deficiencies in amenities like green area, sports facilities, and club, and the awarding of compensation are upheld in part, with specific monetary awards and directions to obtain completion certificates (!) (!) (!) . - The Commission directs the builder to pay compensation and to obtain/hand over the Completion Certificate within six months (!) . - The decision discusses the "Enticement Doctrine" where brochure representations create a liability for unfulfilled promises, notwithstanding later contractual modifications (!) (!) . - The tribunal confirms that the association may be the recipient of common-area benefits and acts as custodian of those amenities (!) (!) . - It rejects certain defences (limitation, privity, and lack of consumer status) based on statutory protections and the ongoing nature of promised facilities (!) (!) (!) . - The order culminates in payment of Rs.60 lakhs plus interest and completion certificate within six months (!) (!) .
JUDGEMENT
Bharatkumar Pandya, Member.—Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate for the Complainant and Mr. Karunesh Tandon, Advocate, for Opposite Parties. The present consumer complaint arises out of alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practices committed by M/s Tarunika Gaur Housing & Construction Ltd. (hereinafter “OP”) in connection with the housing project Arunima Palace, situated at Plot No. GH-4, Sector-4, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, U.P. The complainant, Arunima Palace Residents Welfare Association is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1881, for safeguarding the interests of its members who are the residents and allottees of flats in the said project. Complainant has approximately 180 members, all of whom purchased flats in the project. Shri H.L. Bhandari, the Secretary of the Complainant Society, has been duly authorized under its bye-laws as well as through an Executive Body Resolution dated 10.08.2013 (Annexure P-1) to file this complaint. In 2007, OP builder widely advertised and launched the booking for its residential project, promising modern amenities, recreational facilities, green open spaces, and a healthy living environment. During 2007-2008
(1) Brochure Promises are Binding – Representations made in a brochure are “foundational enticements” for buyers. The Builder cannot subsequently negate these promises by relying on the Allotment Let....
The court ruled that a consumer society cannot claim compensation for deficiency without clear evidence of service shortfalls and emphasizes obligations under the Consumer Protection Act and MOFA.
(1) Arbitration Clause – Arbitration Clause in the Agreement does not bar the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora to entertain the Complaint.(2) Additional Amount – Developer is entitled to charge the ....
(1) Continuous cause of action - The defects and deficiencies in service for which the instant complaint has been filed is continuous in nature and still subsists and therefore the cause of action is....
Housing Board – Personalised, subjective, biased, one-sided & uncorroborated opinion about facilities cannot be relied upon in absence of substantive evidence.
Co-operative Society - Cooperative Society is not entitled to file a complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act unless the cooperative society itself is a Consumer.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
