SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Online)(Del) 4577

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
R. K. Agrawal, PRESIDENT
Brigadier Harir Pant v. Imperia Structures Ltd.
Consumer Complaint No. 1044 of 2018 | Consumer Complaint No. 1043/2018 | Consumer Complaint No. 1045/2018 | Consumer Complaint No. 1046/2018 | Consumer Complaint No. 1047/2018 | Consumer Complaint No. 1048/2018 | Consumer Complaint No. 1190/2018 | Consumer Complaint No. 1191/2018 | Consumer Complaint No. 2590/2018



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rahul Sharma
For the Respondents: Neha Gupta

The failure of a developer to deliver possession of booked flats within agreed timelines constitutes a deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, entitling consumers to refunds and interest.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 12(1)(a) and 21 - Consumer complaints for refund and damages - Complainants alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practices for delayed possession - Developer failed to provide adequate evidence of delays outside their control and did not support claims of force majeure - Underlying agreements stipulated timeframes for possession, which were not fulfilled, leading the court to determine that the Complainants are indeed 'Consumers' under the Act. (Paras 10, 12, 33)

(B) Deficiency in Service - Developer's failure to deliver flats as promised within stipulated timelines constitutes deficiency in service, justifying demands for refunds and interest. Court affirmed previous rulings against the same Developer under similar circumstances, reinforcing the principle that the onus of proof lies with the Developer in consumer contracts. (Paras 8, 9, 14)

Facts of the case:
The Complainants filed complaints for refund due to the Developer's failure to deliver residential flats from a promised housing project, subject to delays attributed by the Developer to force majeure.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the Developer had not completed construction on time and directed refunds for all Complainants. Interest at 9% p.a. was deemed reasonable for amounts held by the Developer.

Issues: The critical issue was whether the Developer's claimed delays constituted acceptable grounds under the Agreement for failing to deliver possession on time. The court resolved that the Developer's defenses did not justify delays preventing effective consumer service.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that agreement terms dictate consumer rights and obligations; any failure to perform as agreed constitutes grounds for allowed consumer complaints under the Act, permitting recovery of invested funds with reasonable interest.

Result: Complaints partly allowed.

Table of Content
1. introduction of key consumer complaints regarding possession delays. (Para 1 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments presented by both parties regarding service deficiency. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. court's assessment of delay causations against developer's claims. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. court's ruling on consumer entitlement for timely refunds. (Para 12 , 13)
5. final determination of complaints resulting in approved refunds. (Para 14 , 21)

1. The present Consumer Complaints have been filed under S.12(1)(a) read with S.21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") by the Complainants against Opposite Party, M/s. Imperia Structure Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Developer) seeking refund of the entire deposited amount collected from them as the Opposite Party Developer failed to hand - over the possession of the Flats booked by them in the Project launched by the Developer in the name and style of "the ESFERA" situated at Sector 37 C, Gurgaon - Dwarka Expressway.

2. Since the facts involved in these Complaints are similar except for minor variations in the Flats numbers and their sale consideration, these Complaints are being disposed off by this common Order. However, for the sake of convenience, facts as enumerated in Consumer Complaint No. 1044 of 2018 have been discussed at length herein.

3. The brief facts as set out in the Complaint are that the Opposite Party Developer launched a residential housing scheme known as the "The ESFERA" situated Sector 37 - C, Gurgaon - Dwarka Expressway Haryana (hereinafter referred to as 'the Project') in the year 2012. It is stated that the Project was widely advertised by the Developer. Alluring by the advertisement by the Opposite Party Developer, the Complainant approached the Developer where he was assured that the entire Project would be completed with all the facilities as mentioned in the brochures and possession would be delivered within 36 months. On the basis of the assurance given, the Complainant booked a Flat No. 303, 3rd Floor, E Block in the said Project by paying a sum of 6,46,374 on 28.5.2012. As per demand of the Developer, Complainant made payment of 6,46,374 and 13,07,998 on 12.7.2012 and 12.8.2012 respectively. Vide letter dated 12.8.2013 the Developer sent Apartment Buyer Agreement, which had arbitrary terms and conditions. Vide E - mail dated 25.4.2013, the Complainant raised objection against the arbitrary terms and conditions of the Agreement, in response to which the Developer replied that it is a standard format and it could not be changed. The Complainant had to sign the one - sided Apartment Buyer Agreement (hereinafter referred to as 'the Agreement'), under the threat of forfeiture of huge amount. The Agreement was executed between the Parties on 12th August 2013. It is also averred that the Developer has charged Preferential Location Charges (PLC) towards park facing location but there is no place for park as of now. It is also averred that the Opposite Party Developer illegally divided the Project into two phases - Phase I for Towers G, H and I and Phase 2 for Towers A, B, C, D, E. It is averred that as per Clause 10.1 of the Agreement, the promised date of delivery was 12.2.2016 but till date the construction has not been completed. The Complainant had deposited a sum of 76,32,142 with the Opposite Party Developer towards a major part of the sale consideration. Despite that the Opposite Party Developer miserably failed to hand over the possession of the Flat booked by him. It is also averred whenever the Complainant enquired about the date of possession of the Flat every time the Opposite Party Developer gives time of another few months for possession. Alleging Deficiency in Service and Unfair Trade Practices on the part of the Opposite Party Developer, the Complainant has thus filed the present Consumer Complaint with the following prayer:
"A. Direct the Opposite party to immediately handover the possession of the residential flat on payment


































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top