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) 7245

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, MEMBER
Mrs. Prerna Banerjee and Ranjan Banerjee – Appellant
Versus
the builder – Respondent
Consumer Complaint No. 1482 of 2015



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Shivam Sharma
For the Respondents: Mr. Pravin Bahadur

The court established that arbitrary contract terms violate consumer rights; thus, builders must refund deposits while allowing for minimal forfeiture on cancellation.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Clauses of Apartment Buyer's Agreement found arbitrary and void under S.23 - Builder directed to refund the money deposited with interest while forfeiting 10% as earnest money on cancellation of allotment. The court evaluated the grievance of unfair trade practices and the failure to deliver possession as promised, recognizing that the complainants were coerced into accepting onerous contract terms which did not hold legal weight. (Paras 9, 10, 11)

(B) Relief - The court delivered a ruling enabling the refund of the entire sum deposited, addressing the mismatch of contractual obligations and actual performance. (Paras 9.1 and 9.2)

Facts of the case:
Complainants booked two flats but sought cancellation due to unfair terms in the Apartment Buyer's Agreement and failure of the builder to deliver the flat as promised, leading to a request for the refund of deposited amounts.

Findings of Court:
The builder’s demand for full payment amidst service delays undermined their position; thus, it was ruled that the complainants ought to be refunded their payments, minus a stipulated earnest fee.

Issues: The key issues revolved around the enforceability of the Apartment Buyer's Agreement, the definition of consumer status, and the implications of prior complaints.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a contract cannot place undue advantage on one party and affirmed consumers’ rights against arbitrary terms, citing prior judgments that deemed similar provisions unenforceable.

Result: Builder directed to refund the entire money deposited by the complainants with interest at 9% per annum, deducting earnest money.

Table of Content
1. booking terms found one-sided. (Para 2 , 3)
2. concerns on entitlement and submissions. (Para 4 , 5)
3. jurisdiction and procedural adherence. (Para 7 , 8)
4. enforcement and refund decision. (Para 9 , 10)

1. Heard Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advocate, for the complainants and Mr. Pravin Bahadur, Advocate, for the opposite party.

2. Mrs. Prerna Banerjee and Ranjan Banerjee have filed above complaint for directing the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as the builder) (i) to withdraw the cancellation letter dated 18.11.2015, (ii) to handover possession of the apartment to the complainants, complete in all respect, in conformity of the Apartment Buyer's Agreement, with all the facilities as per quality standard promised and execute conveyance deed, (iii) to adjust the amounts charged for parking and preferential location, towards the sale consideration of the apartment, (iv) to pay delayed compensation in the shape of interest @ 12% per annum from the date of promised possession till the date of handing over physical possession (v) to pay Rs.25 lacs as the compensation for mental agony and physical harassment (vi) to pay Rs.5 lacs as the cost of the litigation and (vii) any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of case. At the time of arguments, the Counsel for the complainants confined his arguments for refund of the entire money deposited by the complainants.

3. The facts, as stated in the complaint and emerged from the documents attached with it, are that the builder was a company and engaged in business of development and construction of residential and commercial buildings and selling its unit to the prospective buyers. The builder launched a project of group housing in the name of "Emerald Bay" at village Dhanwapur, Sectors - 104, Gurgaon, Haryana. The representatives of the builder approached the complainants and impressed them by alluring and attractive promises. The complainants booked a flat on 28.1.2013 and gave a cheque of Rs.10 lacs. The builder allotted Flat No. A3-1001, (super built up area 2,450 sq.ft., basic sale price Rs.1,77,62,500) on 28.2.2013. Along with allotment letter, 'Construction Linked Payment Plan' was supplied, in which total cost of Rs.2,37,23,496 was shown. The Apartment Buyer's Agreement was executed on 9.10.2013. The complainants had deposited total Rs.46,09,680 by that time. Although the terms of Apartment Buyer's Agreement were arbitrary, but the complainants had no option except to sign it. The complainants deposited Rs.10,00,000 on 28.1.2013, Rs.16,00,000 on 12.4.2013, Rs.1,57,376 on 12.4.2013, Rs.5,00,000 on 7.5.2013, Rs.4,00,201 on 15.6.2013, Rs.4,42,114 on 15.6.2013, Rs.5,00,000 on 5.7.2013, Rs.10,000 on 24.7.2013, Rs.23,75,285 on 15.11.2013, Rs.23,89,546 on 7.11.2014 and Rs.23,75,488 on 20.1.2015 (total Rs.1,17,50,010). The complainants, through letter dated 22.6.2015, made some queries from the builder and also pointed out that some of the clauses of Apartment Buyer's Agreement were unfair. The complainants did not receive any reply of the letter dated 22.6.2015, therefore gave reminder dated 7.7.2015. Then the builder gave reply of some of the queries vide letter dated 30.7.2015. The complainant, vide letter dated 4.8.2015, sought for a meeting with the officers of the builder. The builder, vide email dated 6.8.2015 fixed 7.8.2015 for the meeting. During meeting no solution of the queries of the complainants was made. In respect of break up of 'super area', they were told that breakup of 'super area' would be shared through email but no information in this respect was given. The complainants then gave a legal notice dated 6.10.2015, raising their objections to the unfair, arbitrary and unlawful terms of the agreement. The builder, vide letter dated 18.11.2015, demanded entire outstanding dues within 30 days, failing which, allotment would be cancelled. The builder has illegally charged for car parking space and preferential location. Vario













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