Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Del) 18169
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J
Sreenivasan Valadi Vayyatu v. Merino Shelters Pvt. Ltd.
Complaint No. 3 of 2013
For the Complainants: [Not Listed]
For the Opposite Parties: [Not Listed]
Complainants cannot claim wrongful termination of the agreement due to signed cancellation, which extinguished their rights.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21(a)(1) - Deficiency in service - Complaint dismissed due to lack of evidence of coercion or deficiency in service on part of Opposite Parties - Complainants had signed a cancellation deed willingly, relinquishing all claims and rights. (Paras 12, 14)
(B) Coercion - Claim of coercion unsupported by evidence - Its validity undermined by signed documents confirming acceptance of the settlement. (Paras 6, 10)
Facts of the case:
Complainants booked a flat but alleged false promises and delay by the builders. They later withdrew their booking and signed a cancellation deed, claiming coercion. Opposite Parties maintained that cancellation was voluntary and accepted.
Findings of Court:
No evidence of coercion presented; the signed cancellation deed extinguished any claims. Complaint dismissed for failure to show deficiency in service.
Issues: Whether there was coercion in signing the cancellation deed and whether there was deficiency in service by the builders.
Ratio Decidendi: The complaint was dismissed as the court found no deficiency in service or coercion, and cancellation deed extinguished any claims.
Result: Complaint dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint filed under the consumer protection act regarding flat booking. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. complainants detailed payments and agreements made with the builders. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. opposite parties misrepresented project details. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. opposite party's claims of unfulfilled agreements and complainants' contention of coercion. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. court provides observations on the cancellation deed. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 6. complaint dismissed; no evidence of coercion or service deficiency established. (Para 13 , 14) |
1. The present Complaint is filed under S.21(a)(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 .
2. Complainants Nos. 1 and 2 are husband and wife. The Complainant No. 3 is their son. Opposite Party No. 1 is a builder and developer and is a subsidiary of 'Man Industries (I) Limited', (also a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956) having Corporate Office at 'Man House', 102, S.V. Road, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai. Opposite Party No. 2 is the Director of Opposite Party No. 1.
3. The Opposite Parties advertised about launching of (i) a 30 storied Premium Residential Tower, called 'Man Valley Vista' comprising of 3 and 4 BHK flats with added amenities, such as restricted access elevators, personalized entrance foyers and private landscaped terraces, swimming pool on 31st floor etc. (ii) a 30 storied commercial / IT building and (iii) a state - of - the - art world class 5 star hotel on Plot No. D - 223(A), (C) and (D) in TTC Industrial Area of MIDC in Nerul, Navi Mumbai - 400 706.
4. Case of the Complainants is that they approached Opposite Parties to book one 3BHK flat on 10.10.2008. The Opposite Parties told that they had obtained all the necessary permissions and sanctions and assured that the possession of the flat would be handed over between one and half - two years. The Complainants booked Flat No. 902 in 'Man Valley Vista' at Rs.5,307 per sq. ft. The Opposite Parties agreed to bear the cost of stamp duty and registration charges and also to provide one parking slot free - of - cost. The total area of the flat was 2165 sq. ft., hence the total amount to be paid was Rs.1,14,89,655 in addition to other expenditure such as development charge, etc. amounting to Rs.3,96,885. As per demand, a sum of Rs.4,00,000 was paid by the Complainants on 10.10.2008 as initial payment by three Cheques bearing No. 089475 drawn on Canara Bank for Rs.1,00,000, No. 530471 drawn on State Bank of India for Rs.1,00,000 both dated 10.10.2008 and No. 530472 dated 23.10.2008 drawn on State Bank of India for Rs.2,00,000 respectively, acknowledged by the Opposite Parties by three separate receipts, all dated 3.11.2008. Subsequently, the area of the flat was unilaterally increased from 2,165 sq. ft, to 2,500 sq. ft. by extending balconies, and the price for additional area of 335 sq. ft. was charged at half of the rate for original area and, thus, the cost of the flat worked out at Rs.1,25,78,577.50. The Complainants obtained home loan of Rs.85,00,000 on 21.10.2010. On 16.12.2010, Agreement for Sale was executed between the Parties. As per Agreement dated 16.12.2010, possession of the premises was to be handed over on or before 30.6.2011.
5. Believing the representations made and the undertakings given by the Opposite Parties, the Complainants paid various amounts to them against their demand notes. The details of payment made by the Complainants are as under:
The total amount paid by the Complainants as on 6.2.2011 was Rs.73,21,730.
6. In the meantime, the Opposite Parties launched a new project of 18 storied 2BHK in the same premises where only one residential 30 storied tower, one IT Park and one state of the art world class 5 star hotels were disclosed in the brochure. The Opposite Parties informed the Complainants that instead of 30 storied tower originally promised, the building would be of 20 stories and the swimming pool which was to be located on the top floor would be brought down to the ground floor and all the amen
