Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 2880
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SUDIP AHLUWALIA, PRESIDING MEMBER, DR. SADHNA SHANKER, MEMBER
AMAN JIT SINGH GREWAL – Appellant
Versus
M/S. SEPSET PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED – Respondent
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. NC/CC/745/2019
For the Complainants:MR. RUPENDER SINHMAR, ADVOCATE, MR. NAMAN TANDON, ADVOCATE
For the Opposite Party:MR. ANSHUMAN TIWARI, ADVOCATE, MR. HARISH PANDEY, ADVOCATE
The court emphasized the obligation of developers to deliver possession within stipulated timelines, determining that unjustifiable delays warrant a refund with interest under consumer law.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21(a)(i) - Refund claim for delayed possession - Complainant entitled to full refund of deposited amounts with interest due to unreasonable delay in possession by Opposite Party. (Paras 16, 17)
(B) Unfair Trade Practice - Complaints of delay in possession constitute actionable deficiency under the Consumer Protection Act, and one-sided terms in contracts found oppressive. (Paras 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The Complainant, represented by his father through Power of Attorney, paid a sum of Rs. 1,15,78,774 towards an apartment, which was never delivered within the contracted timeline of 42 months plus grace period, leading to claims for refund and damages.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled the Opposite Party liable for the delay in delivery of possession and directed them to refund the entire amount with interest.
Issues: Whether the Complainant is a 'Consumer' under the Act and if the delay by the Opposite Party constitutes deficiency in service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that delays attributed to internal issues of the developer do not absolve them from the contractual obligation to deliver timely possession.
Result: Complaints allowed; refund ordered with interest.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the complainant's purchase and alleged delays. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. defenses raised by the opposite party regarding consumer status and delays. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's analysis on the lack of justification for delays. (Para 11 , 12 , 14) |
| 4. court's final decision mandating a refund and outlining conditions. (Para 16 , 17) |
ORDER
JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER
These Consumer Complaints have been filed under Section 21 (a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , seeking refund of the deposited amount along with other ancillary reliefs.
2. The facts and question of law involved in these Complaints are similar in all material particulars, therefore these Complaints are being disposed off by this common Order. However, for the sake of convenience, CC/745/2019 is treated as the lead case and the facts enumerated hereinafter are extracted from this Complaint.
3. The factual background, in brief, is that the Complainant, an NRI represented by his father through a duly executed Special Power of Attorney, had applied for an Apartment in the project “Paras Dew’s” by the Opposite Party situated at Sector-106, Gurugram, Haryana by submitting an Application Form dated 29.12.2012 along with a booking amount of Rs. 7,50,000/-. The Opposite Party, M/s. Sepset Properties Pvt. Ltd., a developer Company, issued an Allotment Letter dated 10.01.2013 allotting Unit No. T-A/0401 (Fourth Floor, Tower-A) with a super area of 1900 sq. ft., for a total consideration of Rs. 1,21,28,000/- (excluding service tax). The Apartment Buyer Agreement was executed on 30.04.2013, wherein Clause 3.1 stipulated that possession would be delivered within 42 months from allotment, with a further grace period of 6 months, i.e., by 30.04.2017. Clause 3.3 provided for delay compensation of Rs. 5 per sq. ft. per month. In accordance with the Construction-Linked Payment Plan, the Complainant made successive payments between 2012 and 2016, totalling Rs. 1,15,78,774/-. However, despite receipt of a substantial amount, the Opposite Party failed to deliver possession within the stipulated period. On 24.01.2019, the Opposite Party issued a letter offering “paper possession” along with a final demand of Rs. 15,30,475/-, but when the Complainant’s father inspected the site, he discovered that construction was incomplete and the approach roads were not as per plan. This led to email correspondence dated 04.02.2019 and 12.02.2019, wherein the Opposite Party failed to provide satisfactory explanations regarding the delay or inadequate compensation.
4. Subsequently, the Complainant got issued a Legal Notice dated 22.02.2019 seeking refund of the paid amount with interest at 18% p.a. from 30.04.2017, and Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony. No response was received from the Opposite Party. The Complainant alleges that the Opposite Party violated the terms of the Apartment Buyer Agreement by unreasonably delaying construction and failing to deliver legal possession. It is further contended that while Clause 2.21 of the Agreement imposes a penal interest of 18% compounded quarterly on the Allottee in case of payment delay, no corresponding compensation has been provided for delay on the part of the Builder, amounting to an unfair trade practice under Section 2 (1)(r) of the Act. The Complainant also contends that the standard-form Agreement was one-sided and arbitrary, providing no real opportunity to negotiate terms. The flat Rs. 5/- per sq. ft. compensation is alleged to be illusory and coercively imposed on all Buyers. The Complainant submits that since the Builder violated a vital term, i.e. timely delivery of possession, he is entitled to seek refund, as supported by settled legal precedents. It is also submitted that despite repeated visits to the Builder’s office and site, no effective redressal was provided. Aggrieved with the same, the present Complaint was filed with the following prayers –
“I. Allow the instant complaint;
II. Direct the Opposite
