2022 Supreme(Online)(Del) 7255
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
N/A, N/A
Muzamil Mattoo and Mrs. Neha Godara – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Emaar MGF Land Limited – Respondent
Consumer Complaint No. XX/XXXX
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Harshika Verma
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajeev Agarwal
Consumer protection laws hold builders accountable for negligence in delivering property and obligate them to compensate for delays.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12(1)(a), 14(1)(d), 14(1)(e) - Consumer complaint against builder for delayed possession of unit - Complainant booked unit and paid substantial amount but possession was not delivered within stipulated time - Builder alleged delay due to defaults by complainants - Court held builder negligent, warranted compensation to complainants for delay in possession. (Paras 1-18)
(B) Fair trade practices - The terms of the agreement imposed unfair terms upon buyers - Supreme Court judgments referenced regarding consumer rights and obligations on builders - Compensation should not be minimal compared to interest charged on loans. (Paras 5, 9, 15)
Facts of the case:
Complainants booked a flat and paid 88,53,372 but builder delayed possession by more than 6 years.
Findings of Court:
Builder is liable for compensation for delay and must deliver possession.
Issues: Delay in possession; Consumer rights; Negligence of builder.
Ratio Decidendi: Builder’s failure to deliver on time constitutes negligence under consumer law, leading to right to compensation.
Result: Opposite party directed to pay delay compensation and deliver possession.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. consumer complaint regarding delayed possession and compensation. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. builder's defenses on delay and previous judgments. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's findings on builder's negligence and obligation to compensate. (Para 12 , 18) |
1. The present Consumer Complaint has been filed under S.12(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Actâ€) by Muzamil Mattoo and Mrs. Neha Godara (hereinafter referred to as the Complainants) against Opposite Party, M/s. Emaar MGF Land Limited (hereinafter referred to as the OP Developer), seeking possession of the Unit along with compensation for delay in delivery or in alternative refund of the amount paid towards purchase of Unit along with interest and costs as the Opposite Party Developer failed to deliver the Possession of the Unit within stipulated period, which was booked by them in the Project launched by the Developer in the name and style of “Emerald Floors†located at Sector—65, Urban Estate, Gurgaon, Haryana.
2. It has been averred in the Complaint that the Opposite Party Developer launched a Residential Project in the name and style of “Emerald Floors†located at Sector—65, Urban Estate, Gurgaon, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the Project). The Complainants booked a Unit in the said Project by paying a booking sum of 10 lakh to the OP Developer. Vide provisional allotment letter 13.09.2011, the Complainants were allotted Unit No. EFP - III - 46-0402 for a sale consideration of 96,43,200 exclusive of EDC and IDC. Buyer’s Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the Agreement) was executed between the Parties on 9.3.2012, in which total sale consideration was mentioned as 1,04,00,200. As per Clause 11 of the Agreement, the delivery of the possession of the Unit was to be offered within 24 months with a grace period of 3 months from the date of the execution of the Agreement, i.e., by 9.7.2014. The Complainant had deposited 88,53,372 on different dates upto the date of filing of the Complaint, as per demand of the Opposite Party Developer. Despite that the Opposite Party Developer miserably failed to deliver the possession of the Unit within stipulated period. It is also averred in the Complaint that the Complainants have availed Home Loan of 65 lakh from the HDFC Bank Limited and are paying interest @10.15% on the said loan to the Bank. After lapsing a long period of more than 6 years from the date of execution of the Agreement and having made huge payment of 88,53,372, i.e., major part of the sale consideration, the Complainant raised query for actual date of possession, the OP Developer without assigning any reason for the delay, kept postponing the delivery date of the said Project on one pretext or the other. Alleging deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the Opposite Party Developer, the Complainant has filed the present Consumer Complaint with the following prayer:
“(a) Direct the Opposite Party to immediately give the possession of the Unit allotted to the Complainants along with an interest @ 24% on the amount deposited and / or;
(b) Direct the Opposite Party to refund the entire amount paid by the Complainant amounting to 88,53,372 along with an interest @ 24% on delayed possession immediately; and
(c) Direct the Opposite Party to pay compensation of 25,00,000 (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Only) for the mental agony, loss of opportunity & finances, for the interest paid by the Complainants to the HDFC bank Limited towards the loan and harassment faced by the Complainants; and
(d) pass any such other and further order(s) as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.â€
3. The Complaint was resisted by the Opposite Party Developer by filing its Written Statement in which it was stated that the Complainant is resident of Mumbai and has purchased the Unit in question to reap financial benefit thus the Complainant does not fall within the ambit of a ‘consumer’. It was fu