Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 2779
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SUDIP AHLUWALIA, PRESIDING MEMBER, DR. SADHNA SHANKER, MEMBER
PARESH PRATAPRAI MEHTA – Appellant
Versus
M/S. SYLVANUS PROPERTIES LIMITED – Respondent
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. NC/CC/797/2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR. M.L. LAHOTY, MR. ANCHIT SRIPAT, MS. SIDHI BOHRA
For the Respondents: MR. ESHAN BANDUNI, MR. S. ANJANI KUMAR
Delay in delivering possession and one-sided contract clauses constitute deficiency in service under consumer protection law.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21(a) - Complaint for refund of deposit and ancillary reliefs - Allegations of delay in delivering possession of the flat booked by the Complainant - Opposite Party failed to adhere to the agreed timeline for possession, leading to claims of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. (Paras 2-5, 11-19)
(B) Agreement clauses found to be one-sided, imposing excessive terms on Complainant while favoring the Builder - Clauses regarding interest and possession timelines deemed unenforceable as per Supreme Court precedents. (Paras 11, 17-18)
Facts of the case:
The Complainant booked a flat under a specific assurance for possession within a defined timeline - Significant delays occurred, with the Opposite Party failing to provide timely updates or adhere to the agreed delivery dates, accumulating justifiable grievances from the Complainant.
Findings of Court:
The Complainant is entitled to a refund of the deposited amount due to unjustified delays, compounded by significant financial commitments made without concomitant delivery of service.
Issues: The main issues pertained to the validity of claims regarding promised delivery timelines versus actual performance, and disputes concerning the nature of the Agreement signed by the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that delays exceeding protracted periods constitute clear deficiencies in service as per the Act, affirming the necessity for the builder to fulfill commitments in a timely manner.
Result: Complaint is allowed, directing the Opposite Party to refund the full amount with interest.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint arose from the delay in property delivery. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments centered on contractual obligations and deficiencies. (Para 5 , 6 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. court found clauses unfair, reinforcing consumer rights. (Para 11 , 14 , 15 , 18) |
| 4. court mandates reasonable timelines in property transactions. (Para 17) |
| 5. final direction to refund based on documented evidence. (Para 19) |
ORDER
JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER
This Consumer Complaint has been filed under Section 21 (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , seeking refund of the deposited amount along with other ancillary reliefs.
2. The factual background, in brief, is that the Complainant booked Flat No. G1-301, in the housing project titled “Indiabulls Golf City” located at Village Savroli, District Raigad, Maharashtra.
The project was launched by the Opposite Party, M/s. Sylvanus Properties Ltd., an SPV of Indiabulls Real Estate Ltd., and the Complainant booked the Flat on 29.03.2013 with a specific assurance of delivery of possession by March 2015. However, even after a delay exceeding 50 months, the Flat remained incomplete and unpossessable. The Complainant alleges that the Opposite Party allured prospective buyers with grandiose representations of a luxury golf lifestyle township, designed by a celebrated golf architect, situated amidst the Sahyadri hills, and boasting world-class amenities. Persuaded by these promises, the Complainant applied for allotment of the Flat by depositing a booking amount of Rs. 11,64,917/-, and was subsequently allotted the specified Unit by E-mail dated 29.04.2013. The total sale consideration was Rs. 1,13,00,000/-. The Complainant had opted for a Construction-linked Payment Plan whereby 80% was to be paid up to the 4th Floor slab (ground plus third Floor), and the remaining 20% was to be paid in two equal instalments, at commencement of finishing and upon possession.
3. The Complainant alleges that the Agreement between the parties was entirely one-sided, with multiple clauses imposing harsh obligations upon the Allottee while permitting the Builder excessive discretion. Notably, under Clause 18, time was made the essence for the Buyer's payments but not for the Builder’s obligation to deliver possession. Clause 23 imposed 18% p.a. quarterly compounded interest on even a single day’s delay in instalment payments, whereas no compensation was payable to the Buyer for delay in handing over possession. Clauses 27 and 38 allowed the Opposite Party to alter layout plans and even put the project in abeyance without the Buyer’s consent or recourse. After making the initial 20% payment, the Complainant sought status updates in December 2013, but received no response. When he visited the site in December2014, he discovered that necessary approvals were obtained only in May 2014, 14 months after booking, and that no construction had begun. The second instalment demand was raised on23.01.2015, confirming the construction had started barely two months before the originally promised possession date. Nevertheless, the Complainant paid the 80% of the total sale consideration by 17.11.2015.
4. Subsequently, on 15.02.2016, the Opposite Party unilaterally altered the original payment plan and layout of the Tower, increasing it from 3 Floors to 7 Floors, and raised an additional demand of 10%, contrary to the agreed Construction-linked Plan. Despite protest letters dated 21.03.2016 and 02.02.2017, the Opposite Party neither reversed the demand nor provided any satisfactory update on the construction status. On 01.01.2019, the Complainant again inquired about possession, to which the Opposite Party replied on 04.01.2019 that the same would be handed over by 31.03.2022, i.e., 7 years after the agreed delivery date. The Complainant further discovered that the date of possession was unilaterally extended in the MAHA RERA application from 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2022 without informing him. The application revealed that construction of Tower G1 w
