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

2023 Supreme(Online)(Del) 18849

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ms. Nikita Sharma, J
Ajay Kumar Verma v. Aims Max Gardenia Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Complaint No. 134 of 2018



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Nikita Sharma
For the Respondents: Mr. Rishi Awasthi

The court determined that delayed compensation is owed at 6% per annum in cases of non-compliance with delivery timelines dictated by agreements.

Headnote:The case under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 involved home buyers of 'Golf City' seeking possession and compensation for the delayed delivery of flats. The court found that the opposite party did not obtain the necessary occupancy certificate, thus invalidating their offer of possession. The court framed issues regarding the delay's justification and the application of previous case law. Ultimately, the court partially allowed the complaint, directing the opposite party to pay delayed compensation at 6% per annum from May 2015 until possession is confirmed after the issuance of the occupancy certificate.

Table of Content
1. introduction to the case and claims by complainants. (Para 1 , 2)
2. details of contractual agreements and commitments made by the opposite party. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. arguments presented and overview of evidence. (Para 6 , 7)
4. court's evaluation of the claims related to delayed possession. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
5. final decision and directive regarding compensation. (Para 11)

1. Heard Ms. Nikita Sharma, Advocate, for the complainants and Mr. Rishi Awasthi, Advocate, for the opposite party.

2. Initially 45 sets of home buyers of the project "Golf City" have filed above complaint, for directing the opposite party to (i) deliver possession of apartment allotted to them in the project "Golf City", complete in all respect as per specifications with promised amenities and facilities and execute conveyance deed in their favour; (ii) pay compensation @ Rs.10 per sq.ft., per month on super area, for first six months from March, 2013 onwards and penalty @ 12% per annum on total amount paid by the buyers for delay beyond August, 2013 till the delivery of possession; (iii) pay Rs.3,00,000 to each buyer, as compensation for mental agony and harassment; and (iv) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. Leave under S.12(1)(c) of Consumer Protection Act , 1986, for filing the complaint in representative capacity has been granted on 01.02.2019. The opposite party obtained "occupation certificate" in respect of Towers C - 2, E - 2, F - 2, G - 2, H - 2 and 12 of the project on 11.7.2018. This Commission, vide order dated 12.11.2018, directed the opposite party to deliver possession to the home buyers of these towers on deposit of admitted amount. In compliance of the order dated 12.11.2018, many complainants took possession and settled their all disputes. On their application they were permitted to withdraw from the complaint and at present 36 set of complainants remain. The opposite party could not obtain "occupation certificate" in respect of Towers A - 2, B - 2, C, H, I, B - 3 and J of the said project, till the date. Therefore, the Counsel for the complainants prayed for refund money of the allottees of these towers with interest at the time of arguments.

4. The complainants stated that M/s. Aims Max Gardenia Developers Private Limited (the opposite party) was a company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of development and construction of group housing project and selling its unit to the prospective buyers. The opposite party launched a group housing project, in the name of "Golf City", at Sector - 75, Noida, U.P., in the year 2010 and made wide publicity of its facilities and amenities. Believing upon the representations and promises of the opposite party, a group of employees of Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited approached the opposite party and expressed its willingness to purchase 100 to 150 flats of different sizes in the said project. The opposite party agreed and a Memorandum of Understanding dated 26.2.2010 was executed between them, which contains basic rate, payment plan, period for delivery of possession and compensation for delay, drawing of six different sizes of flats, specifications, towers etc. This Memorandum of Understanding was amended on 10.4.2011. Each of the complainants booked a flat during March to June, 2010 and deposited booking amount. The opposite party allotted one flat to each of them during December, 2010 to October, 2011 and executed Apartment Buyer Agreement during March, 2011 to November, 2011 in favour of the complainants. Payment Plan was "Flexi Payment Plan", under which 10% BSP was payable at the time of booking, 30% BSP within 30 days from the date of the apartment buyers agreement, 50% BSP was payable in 5 instalments, on start of different level of construction and 10% BSP and 100% other charges within 30 days of intimation for possession. Clause - 27 of the agreement provides to complete construction up t










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