Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 3197
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. P. SAHI, PRESIDENT, HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH, MEMBER
VISHNU HI-TECH CITIZEN WELFARE SOCIETY – Appellant
Versus
M/S SHUBHALAY VUILLA AND ORS. – Respondent
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO, 165 OF 2013 | IA NO. 11324 OF 2023 | IA NO. 11325 OF 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Nishant Awana, Mr. Manoj Jain, Mr. Rakesh Tandon
For the Respondents: Ms. Namrata Chandorkar, Mr. Ritesh Khare, Mr. Arjun Garg, Ms. Sagun Srivastava
Representations in promotional materials create binding obligations on developers; failure to provide promised amenities constitutes deficiency in service under consumer protection laws.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 14 and 24-A - Deficiency of services in housing development - Complaint filed by a society representing members alleging unfulfilled promises of facilities and amenities by developers - Relief sought includes reimbursement for maintenance expenses and damages for deficiencies - The court held that the promises made in the brochure constitute binding obligations, and failure to provide these amenities amounts to deficiency in service. The complaint was allowed, directing the developers to either provide the promised amenities or pay compensation with interest. (Paras 78, 79, 80, 81)
(B) Legal obligations of developers - The representations made in promotional materials are enforceable and must be fulfilled by the developers. (Paras 62, 63)
Facts of the case:
The complainant society alleged that its members, who purchased units in a housing project, were not provided with the promised amenities and facilities, leading to additional expenses for maintenance and security. A legal notice was sent to the developers, but no satisfactory response was received, prompting the filing of this complaint. (Paras 1-10)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the developers failed to deliver the promised amenities, constituting a deficiency in service. The complaint was upheld, with directions for the developers to fulfill their obligations or compensate the complainants. (Paras 78-82)
Issues: The primary issues included whether the developers were liable for the deficiencies in services and whether the complaint was time-barred, considering the possession dates of the units. (Paras 49-60)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that representations made in brochures and agreements create enforceable obligations. The failure to provide promised amenities constitutes a deficiency in service. The court rejected the defense that the complaint was time-barred, recognizing the continuing nature of the deficiencies. (Paras 62-64)
Result: Complaint allowed with directions for compensation and provision of amenities.
ORDER
A. P. SAHL J (PRESIDENT)
1. The Complainants' society has come up in this complaint alleging deficiency in services relating to the units that were allotted and purchased by their members whose list has been appended as annexure C-4 to the Complaint. The same comprises of 162 names. The reliefs prayed for in the complapints on the allegation of deficiencies are as follows:
"a) The opposite parties may therefore be jointly and severally directed to provide the facilities promised by them and to remove the deficiencies pointed out hereinabove and in Enclosure A &B to the satisfaction of the compiainant-society or in alternate they be directed to pay the amount of Rs. 6,45,28,000/- (Rupees Six Crores Forty Five Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand Only) calculated and shown in Enclosure A & B.
b) The opposite parties may further be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 13,85,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Eighty Five Thousand Only) to the complainant-society towards the amount spent by them upto 30/4/2013 in taking care of the security guard issue, day-to-day maintenance including electricity and other expenses and gardening. The opposite parties may further be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) per month during the pendency of the present complaint as well as post-Htigation, till the dues are not completely settled by the opposite parties.
c) The opposite parties may therefore be jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,16,00,000/- (Two Crores Sixteen Lakhs Only), collected by them from the purchasers of the units for the day to day maintenance of the common areas of the colony.
d) The opposite parties may further be directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1.00 Crore as damages/compensation for the deficiency committed by them.
e) The opposite parties may also be directed to pay interest @18% on the above mentioned amounts as pre-iitigation, pendentiite and post-iitigation interest.
f) The opposite parties may also be directed to pay costs of the present proceedings."
2. The Complainants have alleged deficiencies relating to the facilities and amenities that were promised by the Opposite Parties represented in their brochure copy whereof has been filed as Annexure C-8 as well as the newspaper advertisements filed along with the same that are contained in pages 105 to 109 of the complaint.
3. The project, named as Vishnu High Tech City, was displayed as a Premium Integrated Township comprising of Duplex apartments and High-Rise apartments. The Members of the Complainant Society are buyers of both types of apartments who have taken possession of their booked units between 2010 to 2013. Mr. Nishant Awana learned Counsel for the Complainant has invited the attention of the Bench to the possession certificates to point out that the last possession extended to one of the members was on 19.04.2013.
4. The agreements enterted into in respect of the High-Rise buildings and that for the Duplex have been displayed through sample agreements, at page 131 and at page 138 respectively. As is evident from the reliefs claimed the deficiencies regarding the undelivered facilities are contained in Clause (a), the deficiency with regard to the maintenance of security as well as the other day to day expenses have been alleged in clause (b) and further the claim of refund has been prayed for the maintenance charges of the common areas of the colony that was realised according to the Complainants and formed part of the total consideration as mentioned in Clause 3 of the agreement itself.
5. The details of the undelivered facilities have been detailed in enclosure A to the complaint and the estimate of incomplete and substandard work has been entailed in enclosure B the same are extracted hereinunder:
6. Mr. Awana submits that the possession which was taken and the possession certificates that have been filed are only in relation to the individual units and the fixtures and fittings. The said possession certificates do not in any way record satisfact
