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

2022 Supreme(Online)(Del) 7220

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
R. K. Agrawal, PRESIDENT, S. M. Kantikar, MEMBER
Chanda Manghani, Rahul Manghani – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Raheja Developers Ltd. – Respondent
Consumer Complaint



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Pawan Kumar Ray
For the Respondents: Mr. Gaurav Mitra

Consumers are entitled to refunds with interest when developers fail to deliver property due to one-sided contract terms viewed as unfair trade practices.

Headnote:This Consumer Complaint was filed under Section 21(A)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by the Complainants seeking refund due to the Developer's failure to deliver possession of the purchased flat. The one-sided nature of the contract terms was analyzed, establishing that such terms constituted unfair trade practices. The court framed issues including the maintainability of the complaint and the definition of 'Consumer'. The court held that the Developer was liable for not delivering possession and ordered a refund with interest. The outcome was a favorable ruling for the Complainants with the complaint allowed.

Table of Content
1. consumer complaint filed for failure to deliver possession. (Para 1 , 2)
2. developer's defense regarding the consumer definition and terms of the agreement. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. court discusses the one-sided nature of the contract and its implications. (Para 10 , 12)
4. entitlement of complainants to refund and compensation for delay in possession. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
5. final decision allowing the consumer complaint. (Para 18 , 19)

1. The present Consumer Complaint has been filed under S.21(A)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") by Chanda Manghani and Rahul Manghani (hereinafter referred to as the Complainants) against Opposite Party, M/s. Raheja Developers Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Developer), seeking refund of the amount paid towards purchase of Flat along with interest as the Opposite Party Developer failed to hand - over the possession of the Flat booked by them in the Project launched by the Developer in the name and style of "Raheja Revanta" located at Sector 78, Gurugram, Haryana.

2. Brief facts as narrated in the Complaint are that the Opposite Party Developer launched a Residential Housing Project in the name and style of "Raheja's Revanta" located at Sector 78, Gurugram, Haryana. The Complainants booked a residential Apartment for their personal use in the said Project by paying a sum of 6,81,315 to the OP Developer on 15.3.2012. Unit No. A - 181, at 18th Floor was allotted to the Complainant for a total sale consideration of 92,49,623. Agreement to Sell (hereinafter referred to as the Agreement) was executed between the Parties on 11.5.2012. It was averred by the Complainant that the terms of the Agreement were one - sided and more beneficial to the Opposite Party Developer as according to Clause 3.7 in case of delay, the Purchaser was liable to pay interest @18%, whereas as per Clause 4.2, in case of delay in possession, the OP Developer was liable to pay meager compensation in the form of 7 per sq. ft. As the Complainants have already deposited huge amount with the Opposite Party Developer they have to sign the unilateral Agreement. As per Clause 4.2 of the Agreement, the possession of the Apartment was to be delivered within 48 months from the date of execution of the Agreement, by 11.5.2016. The Complainant had opted for Construction Linked Payment Plan and had deposited 82,06,538 on different dates as per demand of the Opposite Party Developer. Despite that the Opposite Party Developer miserably failed to deliver the possession of the Flat within stipulated period. Whenever the Complainant raised queries with the Opposite Party Developer regarding handing over the possession, the Developer neither provided any specific date for the delivery of the possession nor refunded the amount deposited by the Complainants. They have lost trust on the Opposite Party Developer and are no longer interested in having possession of the Apartment. Alleging deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the Opposite Party Developer, the Complainants has filed the present Consumer Complaint with the following prayer:
(a) allow the present complaint;
(b) Direct the Opposite Party to refund the entire amount paid by the Complainants i.e. Rs.82,06,538 (Rupees Eighty two lakh Six Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty Eight Only) along with 18% simple interest as compensation from the date of payment until realization; and
(c) Direct the Opposite Party to make the payment for the sum of Rs.60,000 (Rupees Sixty Thousand Only) per month from the date of booking unit refund as compensation for the loss suffered by the complainants on their rental accommodation during this time; and
(d) Opposite Party may be further directed to compensate the Complainants to the tune of Rs.10,00,000 (Rupees Ten Lakh) for mental harassment and unfair trade practices.
(e) Opposite Party may also be directed to pay the cost of the Complainants to the tune of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees One Lac Only) as litig

























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