Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Binoy Kumar, PRESIDING MEMBER, Saroj Yadav, MEMBER
Parul Karan Bhasin & Shreya Bhasin – Appellant
Versus
M/S. RAMPRASTHA PROMOTERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. – Respondent
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. NC/CC/2028/2019 | NC/IA/3645/2022
Failure to deliver possession within the agreed timeline constitutes deficient services under consumer law.
Headnote:The Consumer Complaint was filed under Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Complainants against the Opposite Parties for refund of payment made for a delayed housing project. The court found deficient services due to failure to deliver possession within the stipulated time framed in the Agreement. Critical legal issues included unfair contractual terms and consumer rights violation. The Opposite Parties were directed to refund the entire amount with interest at 9% per annum from the respective dates of deposit.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the complaint including background and claims. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties regarding contract and fulfillment. (Para 8 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. legal rationale regarding jurisdiction and contractual terms. (Para 9 , 16) |
| 4. court's observations on the agreement and obligations. (Para 10 , 11 , 15 , 17) |
| 5. final ruling and orders of the court. (Para 19) |
ORDER
Binoy Kumar, Presiding Member
1. The present Consumer Complaint, i.e., CC/2028/2019, is filed under Section 2 1 (a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act , 1986 (for short, “the Act”), by Parul Karan Bhasin & Shreya Bhasin (hereinafter referred to as the “Complainants”) against M/s Ramprastha Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Opposite Party No.1/Builder”) and M/S Blue Bell Proptech Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Opposite Party No. 2), seeking refund of the amount paid towards purchase of Unit along with interest, compensation and other reliefs.
2. The brief facts leading up to the present Complaint are that the Opposite Parties widely advertised their housing project, namely, “SKYZ” (hereinafter referred to as Project) in RP City, Sector 37 D, Gurgaon, Haryana, prompting inquiries by prospective buyers. During these advertisements, the Opposite Parties represented that the flats would be delivered within a specific timeframe. Relying on these representations, the Complainants rd applied for and were ultimately allotted Unit - 302, 3 Floor, Tower- H in the said project of the Opposite Parties. For the sake of convenience, the relevant details of the Unit are as under:
| Sr. No. | Particulars | |
| 1. | Complainants | Parul Karan Bhasin and Shreya Bhasin |
| 2. | Booking Date | 21.08.2011 |
| 3. | Booking Amount | Rs.13,67,346/- |
| 4. | Unit No. | 302, 3rd Floor, Tower- H |
| 5. | Apartment Buyer’s Agreement (Agreement) | 28.09.2011 |
| 6. | Proposed date of possession as per Agreement (excluding grace period of 120 days) | 31.08.2014 |
| 7. | Sale Consideration | Rs.91,15,639/- |
| 8. | Total Amount Paid | Rs.64,61,168/- |
3. The Complainants stated that, following the Unit’s allotment, each buyer/ allottee was obliged to sign and return a pre-prepared Builder Buyer’s Agreement ( hereinafter referred to as Agreement) allegedly containing one-sided clauses favouring the Opposite Parties. When the allottees requested amendments to the unfair clauses of an agreement, they were informed that no changes would be entertained and that refusal to sign would result in cancellation of their allotment and forfeiture of their earnest money. Consequently, the allottees/complainants had no choice but to accept and sign the agreement as drafted by the Opposite Parties.
4. The Complainants further stated that the payments are required to be made according to a specified schedule, which the Buyers agreed upon. The Complainants made regular payments in accordance with the schedule. These payments also covered additional charges, such as service tax, and included interest on any delayed instalments at the rate of 18% per month, compounded quarterly.
5. The Complainants averred that the present housing project comprises five distinct Blocks/Towers. However, the construction thereof remains incomplete, despite the lapse of the stipulated period for handing over possession as assured by the Opposite Parties. The Complainants have regularly visited the project site and were dismayed to observe that construction activities were not being carried out at any point in time. Further, there was no authorized representative of the Builder present at the site to address the queries or concerns of the allottees/ purchasers. It is evident that, despite having collected a substantial portion of the total consideration amount, the Opposite Parties have wilfully failed to complete construction of the specific tower in which the Complainants' unit was allotted. The site presently resembles an abandoned area, with partially constructed structures, and no significant progress has been made for a period exceeding fo
