Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Del) 7436
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
R. K. Jain, J
Gita Rani Narang (Deceased) v. Shipra Estate Ltd. Jai Krishan Estates Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Consumer Complaint No. 08 of 2016
Important Points
Subject
Consumer Protection - Deficiency in Service
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Concerns over the jurisdiction of the consumer forum regarding price fixation discussed, with reliance on various case laws holding that pricing decisions are within the authority of builders and cannot be challenged in consumer forums. (Paras 17, 18, 19)
Facts of the case:
Complainants booked three flats and alleged deficiencies in service for delay and price increases after substantial payments were made. Possession timelines were not met as per original agreements.
Findings of Court:
Complainants were considered consumers, with the Commission holding the Opposite Parties liable for failing to deliver possession in time. Compensation for delays was ordered.
Issues: Central issues included the nature of terms in the allotment letters regarding time essentials and increased flat areas affecting prices.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the complainants remained consumers under the act, and that the basis for pricing and service provisions were within the scope of consumer protection, reinforcing the essential nature of service agreements. Delay compensation was ruled effective since possession was not delivered.
Result: Directed to hand over possession of flats and awarded delay compensation.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint details and associated services. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments regarding consumer status and intent. (Para 7 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court's observation on price fixation. (Para 9 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. decision on delay compensation and possession. (Para 20) |
| 5. resulting orders for possession and compensation. (Para 21) |
1. The present Complaint is filed under S.21(a) (1) of Consumer Protection Act , 1986. Originally, the Complaint was filed by the Complainant - Mr. Surender K. Narang and his wife Ms. Gita Rani Narang. During the pendency of the Complaint, Complainant - Ms. Gita Rani Narang expired and her legal heirs Master Abhimanyu Narang and Master Abhay Narang were substituted.
2. Case of the Complainants is that Complainant - Mr. Surender K. Narang and his wife Ms. Gita Rani Narang booked 3 flats, viz. Flats Nos. OAK 1402, OAK 1502 and PALASH - 701 (hereinafter referred as Flat Nos.1, 2 & 3) on different dates in the Group Housing Project ˜Srishti - Shipra Krishna, 15, Ahinsa Khand, Indirapuram, Distt. Ghaziabad (U.P.). The Project was a joint venture of Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2.
3. Opposite Party No. 1 / Builder represented that all approvals from the concerned authorities were already taken. The Complainants booked Flat No. 1 (OAK 1402) measuring super area 2500 sq. ft. on 4.6.2013 by paying an advance of Rs. 5 lakh, vide cheque No. 827476 drawn on ICICI Bank and the flat was allotted, vide allotment letter No. 1128 dated 4.6.2013. The possession of the flat was to be delivered by February 2014.
4. The Complainants also booked Flat No. 2 measuring 2,350 sq. ft. by paying Rs. 10 lakh. As per allotment letter dated 30.11.2014, possession of the flat was to be delivered by April, 2015.
5. Similarly, the Complainants booked Flat No. 3 measuring 2,350 sq. ft. by paying an advance of Rs. 5,00,000. As per allotment letter dated 30.5.2013, possession was to be given by January, 2014.
6. The Complainants also made payment to Opposite Party No. 1 as per schedule given in the allotment letters. The Complainants came to know that Opposite Party applied for approval of building plan of the flats one year after booking of the flats after accepting substantial amount from the Complainants. The Complainants made timely payment to Opposite Party No. 1. They had taken loan from the bank and were paying interest on the amount. The Bank delayed disbursement of the loan amount because Opposite Party No. 1 failed to provide the approved map of the project. On 22.12.2015, Opposite Party No. 1 sent an email to the Complainants along with statement of account. As per the statement, super area of flat No. 1 was increased from 2,500 sq. ft. to 2680 sq. ft. and that of flat No. 2 from 2,350 sq. ft. to 2,680 sq. ft., thereby arbitrarily increasing the cost of the flats by Rs. 21 lakhs. Similarly, the area of flat No. 3 was increased from 2,450 sq. ft. to 2,463 sq. ft. Opposite Party No. 1 also failed to deliver possession in time. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainants filed the instant Consumer Complaint with the following prayer:
A. award compensation of against claim Rs. 3,540,000 (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs Forty Thousand only) as mentioned in paragraph IV (1) above along with interest, if any;
B. award compensation of against claim Rs. 1,57,51,624 (Rupees One Crore Fifty Seven lacs Fifty One Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty Four only) as mentioned in paragraph IV (2) above along with interest, if any;
C. award compensation of against claim of Rs. 5,80,000 (Rupees Five Lac Eighty Thousand only) as mentioned in paragraph IV(3) above along with interest, if any;
D. direct reverse of entry of Rs. 21, 50,248 (Rupees twenty one lakh fifty thousand two hundred fifty eight) as mentioned in paragraph IV (4) above, if any;
E. award compensation of against claims Rs. 43,458 (Rupees Forty Three Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Eight only) as mentioned in para
